Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40666208›Full record

ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2025

Clinical decision-making in the treatment of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders in Australia.

Lizél-Antoinette Bertie, Jennifer L Hudson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Lizél-Antoinette BertieSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-9515
Jennifer L HudsonSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5778-2670

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

childhood anxietyChildren and adolescentsclinical decision-makingtreatment formulation

Identifiers

PMID40666208
PMCPMC12218447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.