Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy Compared on their Effectiveness Using the Propensity Score Method

Functional Family Therapy for families of youth (age 11-18) with behaviour problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short-term family-based intervention for youth with behaviour problems. FFT has been widely implemented in the USA and other high-income countries. It is often described as an evidence-based program with consistent, positive effects.

Objectives

We aimed to synthesise the best available data to assess the effectiveness of FFT for families of youth with behaviour problems.

Search Methods

Searches were performed in 2013-2014 and August 2020. We searched 22 bibliographic databases (including PsycINFO, ERIC, MEDLINE, Science Direct, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, World CAT dissertations and theses, and the Web of Science Core Collection), as well as government policy databanks and professional websites. Reference lists of articles were examined, and experts were contacted to search for missing information.

Selection Criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) with parallel cohorts and statistical controls for between-group differences at baseline. Participants were families of young people aged 11-18 with behaviour problems. FFT programmes were compared with usual services, alternative treatment, and no treatment. There were no publication, geographic, or language restrictions.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two reviewers independently screened 1039 titles and abstracts, read all available study reports, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data onto structured electronic forms. We assessed risks of bias (ROB) using modified versions of the Cochrane ROB tool and the What Works Clearinghouse standards. Where possible, we used random effects models with inverse variance weights to pool results across studies. We used odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes. We used Hedges g to adjust for small sample sizes. We assessed the heterogeneity of effects with χ 2 and I 2. We produced separate forest plots for conceptually distinct outcomes and for different endpoints (<9, 9-14, 15-23, and 24-42 months after referral). We grouped studies by study design (RCT or QED), and then assessed differences between these two subgroups of studies with χ 2 tests. We generated robust variance estimates, using correlated effects (CE) models with small sample corrections to synthesise all available outcome data. Exploratory CE analyses assessed potential moderators of effects within these domains. We used GRADE guidelines to assess the certainty of evidence on six primary outcomes at 1 year after referral.

Main Results

Twenty studies (14 RCTs and 6 QEDs) met our inclusion criteria. Fifteen of these studies provided some valid data for meta-analysis; these studies included 10,980 families in relevant FFT and comparison groups. All included studies had high risks of bias on at least one indicator. Half of the studies had high risks of bias on baseline equivalence, support for intent-to-treat analysis, selective reporting, and conflicts of interest. Fifteen studies had incomplete reporting of outcomes and endpoints. Using the GRADE rubric, we found that the certainty of evidence for FFT was very low for all of our primary outcomes. Using pairwise meta-analysis, we found no evidence of effects of FFT compared with other active treatments on any primary or secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were: recidivism, out-of-home placement, internalising behaviour problems, external behaviour problems, self-reported delinquency, and drug or alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were: peer relations and prosocial behaviour, youth self esteem, parent symptoms and behaviour, family functioning, school attendance, and school performance. There were few studies in the pairwise meta-analysis (k < 7) and little heterogeneity of effects across studies in most of these analyses. There were few differences between effect estimates obtained in RCTs versus QEDs. More comprehensive CE models showed positive results of FFT in some domains and negative results in others, but these effects were small (standardised mean difference [SMD] <|0.20|) and not significantly different from no effect with one exception: Two studies found positive effects of FFT on youth substance abuse and two studies found null results in this domain, and the overall effect estimate for this outcome was statistically different from zero. Over all outcomes (15 studies and 293 effect sizes), small positive effects were detected (SMD = 0.19, SE = 0.09), but these were not significantly different from zero effect. Prediction intervals showed that future FFT evaluations are likely to produce a wide range of results, including moderate negative effects and strong positive results (-0.37 to 0.75).

Authors’ Conclusions

Results of 10 RCTs and five QEDs show that FFT does not produce consistent benefits or harms for youth with behavioural problems and their families. The positive or negative direction of results is inconsistent within and across studies. Most outcomes are not fully reported, the quality of available evidence is suboptimal, and the certainty of this evidence is very low. Overall estimates of effects of FFT may be inflated, due to selective reporting and publication biases.

Evidence Base Update of Psychosocial Treatments for Adolescents with Disruptive Behavior

OBJECTIVE

This article expands the review of psychosocial treatments for adolescents with disruptive behavior (DB), published previously by this journal. That earlier review focused on DB treatment studies published 1966-2014; the current paper updates the evidence base by incorporating DB treatment studies published 2014-2021.

METHOD

A literature search and screening process identified 63 new studies for inclusion in this updated review. The 63 new studies were combined with 86 studies from the prior review and evaluated using Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology level of support criteria, which classify studies as well established, probably efficacious, possibly efficacious, experimental, or of questionable efficacy based on the evidence.

RESULTS

In total, 3 well-established, 7 probably efficacious, and 10 possibly efficacious treatments for adolescents with DB were identified. Further, 52 treatments were classified as experimental and 22 treatments were determined to have questionable efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be a large body of literature building the evidence base for treatments of adolescent DB. With a few exceptions, treatments falling into the top three evidence levels utilized more than one theoretical approach, enhancing each treatment's ability to target DB from multiple angles. Key advances include broad representation of various demographic groups, countries of origin, treatment settings, and provider types in this body of research. Despite these advances, more research is needed to address key gaps in the field, including the need for more studies on treatments tailored to adolescents with DB who are not yet involved with the juvenile justice system.

Whose Outcomes Come Out? Patterns of Caregiver- and Youth-reported Outcomes Based on Caregiver-youth Baseline Discrepancies

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies between caregiver and youth reports of emotional and behavioral symptoms are well-documented, with cross-informant correlations often falling in the low to moderate range. Studies have shown that caregiver-youth (dis)agreement in reporting of youth symptoms is related to treatment outcomes. However, commonly used methods for exploring reporter discrepancies (e.g., difference scores) are limited by their inability to assess discrepancies across multiple symptom domains simultaneously, and thus these previous findings do not explore multiple patterns of (dis)agreement.

METHOD

We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of clinically referred youths based on patterns of caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing and externalizing symptoms for 174 caregiver-youth dyads. Longitudinal multilevel models were used to examine changes in weekly caregiver- and youth-reported internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and top problems for identified subgroups.

RESULTS

The LPA identified four latent subgroups: (a) Caregiver Internalizing (9%), (b) Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing (45%), (c) Youth Internalizing (7%), and (d) Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing (39%). Clinical outcomes varied across informants and subgroups. Significant improvements in caregiver- and youth-reported outcome measures were documented within the Caregiver Internalizing, Caregiver Internalizing-Externalizing, and Caregiver-Youth Internalizing-Externalizing subgroups. However, only youth-reported improvements were detected in the Youth Internalizing subgroup. The results show differences in treatment outcomes across caregiver-youth informant subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest how youth and caregiver baseline data could provide guidance for clinicians in interpreting discrepant reporting and its relevance to change during treatment.

Voluntary uptake and continuation of treatment among court-involved youth: Lessons learned from the implementation of Functional Family Therapy in a community setting

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is generally recognized as an effective intervention for court-involved youth. Relatively few studies, however, have focused on the delivery of FFT among youth offenders, especially among older minority youth located at the "deep end" of the juvenile justice system. This research adds to this sparse literature by focusing on the voluntary uptake and continuation of FFT among such youth (N = 60) in Lucas County, Ohio. Most of these youth were Black males nearing adult age who were referred to FFT while in residential placement or on probation. Getting these youth to start and advance in therapy proved a considerable challenge, with only 28% of referred youth making it to the final phase of FFT. Multiple group meetings and an interview with court and treatment practitioners brought to light various factors viewed by these personnel as inhibiting uptake and retention. These factors serve as potential lessons that other jurisdictions can learn from and have implications for future research on FFT that are discussed. These lessons learned include (1) setting an expected rate of uptake and retention that reflects the risk profile of referred youth; (2) considering whether to deliver FFT alone or in combination with other services; (3) devising ways to incentivize uptake and retention; (4) formalizing FFT eligibility or referral criteria; and (5) weighing whether to exclude certain youth or families from FFT due to factors such as guardian turnover.