ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2025
Clinical decision-making in the treatment of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders in Australia.
Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Recent evidence that few help-seeking children and adolescents receive evidence-based care for anxiety in Australia highlighted the need for an increased understanding of clinical decision-making in this field. This article reports on a survey that explored the perspective of clinicians regarding the care they provide for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders, and the factors influencing this decision-making process. Underlying decision-making constructs were investigated, including theoretical orientation, assessment, treatment planning and techniques, attitudes towards research and sources used to support clinical practice. Willingness to engage with clinical decision support was also examined. Method: A sample of Australian mental health practitioners ( Results: Generally, clinicians subscribe to more than one theoretical orientation, with a majority incorporating a CBT approach. Clinical assessment and treatment formulation processes aligned with evidence-based practices and recommendations. Most clinicians reported high esteem for research to inform both their theoretical approach and clinical practice, and most respondents indicated interest in user-testing a decision support tool. Conclusions: In contrast to earlier research, Australian clinicians self-report routine employment of evidence-based practices to guide clinical assessment, treatment formulation and treatment delivery in their practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.