IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v17y2021i4ne1158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multisystemic Therapy® for social, emotional, and behavioural problems in youth age 10 to 17: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Julia H. Littell
  • Therese D. Pigott
  • Karianne H. Nilsen
  • Stacy J. Green
  • Olga L. K. Montgomery

Abstract

Background Multisystemic Therapy® (MST®) is an intensive, home‐based intervention for families of youth with social, emotional, and behavioural problems. MST therapists engage family members in identifying and changing individual, family, and environmental factors thought to contribute to problem behaviour. Intervention may include efforts to improve communication, parenting skills, peer relations, school performance, and social networks. MST is widely considered to be a well‐established, evidence‐based programme. Objectives We assessed (1) impacts of MST on out‐of‐home placements, crime and delinquency, and other behavioural and psychosocial outcomes for youth and families; (2) consistency of effects across studies; and (3) potential moderators of effects including study location, evaluator independence, and risks of bias. Search Methods Searches were performed in 2003, 2010, and March to April 2020. We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, NCJRS Abstracts, ProQuest and WorldCAT dissertations and theses, and 10 other databases, along with government and professional websites. Reference lists of included articles and research reviews were examined. Between April and August 2020 we contacted 22 experts in search of missing data on 16 MST trials. Selection Criteria Eligible studies included youth (ages 10 to 17) with social, emotional, and/or behavioural problems who were randomly assigned to licensed MST programmes or other conditions. There were no restrictions on publication status, language, or geographic location. Data Collection and Analysis Two reviewers independently screened 1802 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 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 χ2 and I 2. Pairwise meta‐analyses are displayed in forest plots, with studies arranged in subgroups by location (USA or other country) and investigator independence. We provide separate forest plots for conceptually distinct outcomes and endpoints. We assessed differences between 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 measures within each of nine outcome domains. Exploratory CE analyses assessed potential moderators of effects within these domains. We used GRADE guidelines to assess the certainty of evidence on seven primary outcomes at one year after referral. Main Results Twenty‐three studies met our eligibility criteria; these studies included a total of 3987 participating families. Between 1983 and 2020, 13 trials were conducted in the USA by MST program developers and 10 studies were conducted by independent teams (three in the USA, three in the UK, and one each in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). These studies examined outcomes of MST for juvenile offenders, sex offenders, offenders with substance abuse problems, youth with conduct or behaviour problems, those with serious mental health problems, autism spectrum disorder, and cases of child maltreatment. We synthesised data from all eligible trials to test the claim that MST is effective across clinical problems and populations. Most trials compared MST to treatment as usual (TAU). In the USA, TAU consisted of relatively little contact and few services for youth and families, compared with more robust public health and social services available to youth in other high‐income countries. One USA study provided “enhanced TAU” to families in the control group, and two USA studies compared MST to individual therapy for youth. The quality of available evidence for MST is mixed. We identified high risks of bias due to: inadequate randomisation procedures (in 9% of studies); lack of comparability between groups at baseline (65%); systematic omission of cases (43%); attrition (39%); confounding factors (e.g., between‐group differences in race, gender, and attention; 43%); selective reporting of outcomes (52%); and conflicts of interest (61%). Most trials (96%) have high risks of bias on at least one indicator. GRADE ratings of the quality of evidence are low or moderate for seven primary outcomes, with high‐quality evidence from non‐USA studies on out‐of‐home placement. Effects of MST are not consistent across studies, outcomes, or endpoints. At one year post randomisation, available evidence shows that MST reduced out‐of‐home placements in the USA (OR 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.84; P

Suggested Citation

  • Julia H. Littell & Therese D. Pigott & Karianne H. Nilsen & Stacy J. Green & Olga L. K. Montgomery, 2021. "Multisystemic Therapy® for social, emotional, and behavioural problems in youth age 10 to 17: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:17:y:2021:i:4:n:e1158
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kellia Chiu & Quinn Grundy & Lisa Bero, 2017. "‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Gorman, Dennis M., 2017. "The decline effect in evaluations of the impact of the Strengthening Families Program for Youth 10-14 (SFP 10-14) on adolescent substance use," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 29-39.
    3. Littell, Julia H., 2006. "The case for Multisystemic Therapy: Evidence or orthodoxy?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 458-472, April.
    4. Smith, James Patrick & Smith, Gillian C., 2010. "Long-term economic costs of psychological problems during childhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 110-115, July.
    5. Boxer, Paul & Kubik, Joanna & Ostermann, Michael & Veysey, Bonita, 2015. "Gang involvement moderates the effectiveness of evidence-based intervention for justice-involved youth," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 26-33.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    7. Dæhlen, Marianne & Madsen, Christian, 2016. "School enrolment following multisystemic treatment: A register-based examination among youth with severe behavioural problems," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 76-83.
    8. Littell, Julia H., 2008. "Evidence-based or biased? The quality of published reviews of evidence-based practices," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 1299-1317, November.
    9. Maria Cary & Stephen Butler & Geoffrey Baruch & Nicole Hickey & Sarah Byford, 2013. "Economic Evaluation of Multisystemic Therapy for Young People at Risk for Continuing Criminal Activity in the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-6, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vivian A. Welch, 2021. "Campbell Collaboration: Reflection on growth and cultivation from 2017 to 2021," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), December.
    2. Julia H. Littell & Sarah Young & Therese D. Pigott & M. Antonia Biggs & Trine Munk‐Olsen & Julia R. Steinberg, 2024. "PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), June.
    3. Nina Thorup Dalgaard & Anja Bondebjerg & Elizabeth Bengtsen & Jens Dietrichson & Anders Bach‐Mortensen, 2024. "Protocol: Interventions aimed at preventing out‐of‐home placement of children: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), June.
    4. Cross, Theodore P. & Wang, Shufen & Tran, Steve P. & Chiu, Yu-Ling, 2024. "Adolescents who enter state custody concurrently with a psychiatric hospitalization," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Montgomery, Paul & Belle Weisman, Clio, 2021. "Non-financial conflict of interest in social intervention trials and systematic reviews: An analysis of the issues with case studies and proposals for management," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Dæhlen, Marianne & Madsen, Christian, 2016. "School enrolment following multisystemic treatment: A register-based examination among youth with severe behavioural problems," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 76-83.
    3. Mears, Daniel P. & Cochran, Joshua C. & Greenman, Sarah J. & Bhati, Avinash S. & Greenwald, Mark A., 2011. "Evidence on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Court Sanctions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 509-520.
    4. Sandra Acosta & Tiberio Garza & Hsien-Yuan Hsu & Patricia Goodson, 2020. "Assessing Quality in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Study of Novice Rater Training," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    5. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    6. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    7. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    9. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    11. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    12. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    13. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    15. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    16. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    19. Joesri Mohamad Saber & Kardina Kamaruddin, 2025. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Training, Competencies, and Job Readiness in the Hotel and Tourism Industry: Trends and Future Directions," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(14), pages 282-297, February.
    20. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:17:y:2021:i:4:n:e1158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.