Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775729›Full record

Trial reportJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2025

The clinical and cost effectiveness of a STAndardised DIagnostic Assessment for children and adolescents with emotional difficulties: the STADIA multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Kapil Sayal, Laura Wyatt, Christopher Partlett, Colleen Ewart, Anupam Bhardwaj, Bernadka Dubicka, Tamsin Marshall, Julia Gledhill, Alexandra Lang, Kirsty Sprange and 9 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Kapil SayalUnit of Mental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2050-4316
Laura WyattNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Christopher PartlettNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Colleen EwartSTADIA Patient and Public Involvement Co-Lead, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Anupam BhardwajUnit of Mental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Bernadka DubickaHull and York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Tamsin MarshallBerkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Bracknell, UK.
Julia GledhillCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexandra LangHuman Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kirsty SprangeNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Louise ThomsonUnit of Mental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sebastian MoodyNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Grace HoltNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Helen BouldCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Clare UptonNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Matthew KeaneNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Edward CoxNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Marilyn JamesNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alan MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme 16/96/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardised Diagnostic Assessment tools, such as the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA), may aid detection and diagnosis of emotional disorders but there is limited real-world evidence of their clinical or cost effectiveness.

methodsWe conducted a multicentre, two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial in eight large National Health Service Trusts in England providing multidisciplinary specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Participants (5-17 year-olds with emotional difficulties referred to CAMHS) were randomly assigned (1:1), following referral receipt, to either receive the DAWBA and assessment-as-usual (intervention group) or assessment-as-usual (control group). Data were self-reported by participants (parents and/or young person, depending on age) at baseline, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation and collected from clinical records up to 18 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome was a clinician-made diagnosis decision about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation.

trial registrationISRCTN15748675.

resultsIn total, 1,225 children and young people (58% female sex) were randomised (615 intervention; 610 control). Adherence to the intervention (full/partial completion) was 80% (494/615). At 12 months, 68 (11%) participants in the intervention group received an emotional disorder diagnosis versus 72 (12%) in the control group (adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.94 [95% CI 0.70, 1.28]). The intervention was not cost effective. There was no evidence of any differences between groups for service-related or participant-reported secondary outcomes, for example, CAMHS acceptance of the index referral (intervention 277 (45%) versus control 262 (43%); RR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.94, 1.19]) was similar between groups.

conclusionsAs delivered in this pragmatic trial, we found no evidence for the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of using a Standardised Diagnostic Assessment tool in aiding the detection of emotional disorders or clinical outcomes in clinically referred children and young people. Despite regular efforts to encourage clinicians to view the DAWBA report and consider its findings as part of assessment and diagnosis, we did not collect data on usage and therefore cannot confirm the extent to which clinicians did this. As a pragmatic trial that aimed to test the effectiveness of incorporating the DAWBA into usual practice and clinical care, our study found that, in the format as delivered in this trial, there was no impact on diagnosis or clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Affective SymptomsCost-Effectiveness AnalysisMental Health ServicesAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEnglandFemaleHumansMaleChild and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)diagnosisemotional disordershealth economic evaluationRCTSTADIAstandardised diagnostic assessment

Identifiers

PMID39775729
PMCPMC12062850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.