Evidence Hub

Client-Rated Facilitators and Barriers to Long-Term Youth Anxiety Disorder Recovery

Elizabeth P Casline, R. Ogle, T. Peris, P. Kendall, J. Piacentini, S. Compton, Courtney Keeton, Golda S. Ginsburg

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2022

2 citations

Abstract

Objective: This study examined client ratings of 26 facilitators and barriers to anxiety improvement approximately six years after randomization to treatment for anxiety. Method: 319 youth (average 17.12 years old; 82.1% Caucasian; 58.6% female) participated in the longitudinal follow-up study to [ORIGINAL RCT], a randomized controlled trial of medication, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), combination, and placebo. Results: Correcting for multiple comparisons, CBT components (i.e., problem solving, changing unhelpful thoughts, relaxation skills) were rated significantly more helpful among youth without, versus with, an anxiety disorder at follow-up. Barriers that differentiated youth with and without an anxiety disorder included being bullied and difficulty applying therapy content to new situations. Comparisons between youth with different anxiety disorder trajectories (e.g., stable remission, relapsed, or chronically ill) also revealed several differences. Conclusion: Findings suggest that client-rated facilitators and barriers covary with anxiety disorder recovery and may serve as useful tools when evaluating long-term treatment efficacy.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free