ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2024
Use of measures and measurement-based care in child and youth mental health: a survey of Australian practitioners.
Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parenting Interventions for Child Mental Health: The Science and Practice of Measurement-Based Care.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2026Review
- Practitioner perspectives on the child and youth mental health system in Australia: what needs to change?Australian journal of psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Use of measures by practitioners in mental health (MH) is a cornerstone of evidence-based practice and essential to high-quality service provision. Session-by-session measure use, known as Measurement-Based Care (MBC), has been shown to improve treatment engagement and outcomes, yet little is known about the use of measures or MBC in Australian child and youth MH practitioners. This study surveyed Australian child and youth MH practitioners to examine the frequency of measure use, what outcomes are measured, and what facilitates measure use. Method: This survey included Australian practitioners ( Results: Most practitioners reported using measures at some stage during treatment, but around 1 in 7 did not use measures at all. Only 10% used measures for every session or most sessions, which is characteristic of MBC. Symptom severity was measured by 84.3% of practitioners but only 35.6% measured goal attainment and 16.7% therapeutic alliance. The top facilitators of measure use endorsed by practitioners included free measures, better platforms to administer measures, and briefer measures. Conclusions: There is room for improvement in the use of outcome measures by Australian child and youth MH practitioners, and specifically in the use of MBC, which may improve client engagement and outcomes. Implications for the implementation of MBC are discussed.
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.