IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v1y2005i1p1-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth Aged 10–17

Author

Listed:
  • Julia H. Littell
  • Melanie Popa
  • Burnee Forsythe

Abstract

The aim of this Campbell Systematic Review was to evaluate the effect of multi‐systemic therapy (MST) on adolescents with social, emotional, and behavioural problems based on the best available evidence. The effect is measured by a range of behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, including the number of institutional placements and arrests, the incidence of drug abuse, and personal relationships, social skills, absence from school, etc. The review is exclusively based on randomised controlled trials in which random allocation between MST and usual treatment has taken place. 266 reports were selected on the basis of title and abstract. Of these 35 were found actually to be effect studies. And finally, eight of the 35 effect studies met the pre‐set quality criteria laid down in the original Campbell/Cochrane review. The Campbell/Cochrane review concludes that MST does not have consistently better effects than other types of interventions ‐ for example, restrictive institutional placement. On the other hand, nothing indicates that MST has any negative overall effects. All in all, MST does not seem to be any better or any poorer than other treatments. The Campbell/Cochrane review concludes that there are no consistent differences in outcome between the adolescents subject to MST and those subject to alternative treatment. This conclusion is based on the best available evidence on the effectiveness of MST. Synopsis Results of eight randomised controlled trials of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) conducted in the USA, Canada, and Norway indicate that it is premature to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of MST compared with other services. Results are inconsistent across studies that vary in quality and context. There is no information about the effects of MST compared with no treatment. There is no evidence that MST has harmful effects. Abstract Background Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is an intensive, home‐based intervention for families of youth with social, emotional, and behavioral problems. Masters‐level therapists engage family members in identifying and changing individual, family, and environmental factors thought to contribute to problem behavior. Intervention may include efforts to improve communication, parenting skills, peer relations, school performance, and social networks. Most MST trials were conducted by program developers in the USA; results of one independent trial are available and others are in progress. Objectives To provide unbiased estimates of the impacts of MST on restrictive out‐of‐home living arrangements, crime and delinquency, and other behavioral and psychosocial outcomes for youth and families. Search strategy Electronic searches were made of bibliographic databases (including the Cochrane Library, C2‐SPECTR, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Sociological Abstracts) as well as government and professional websites, from 1985 to January 2003. Reference lists of articles were examined, and experts were contacted. Selection criteria Studies where youth (age 10–17) with social, emotional, and/or behavioral problems were randomised to licensed MST programs or other conditions (usual services or alternative treatments). Data collection & analysis Two reviewers independently reviewed 266 titles and abstracts; 95 full‐text reports were retrieved, and 35 unique studies were identified. Two reviewers independently read all study reports for inclusion. Eight studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data from these studies. Significant heterogeneity among studies was identified (assessed using Chi‐square and I2), hence random effects models were used to pool data across studies. Odds ratios were used in analyses of dichotomous outcomes; standardised mean differences were used with continuous outcomes. Adjustments were made for small sample sizes (using Hedges g). Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were used. Main results The most rigorous (intent‐to‐treat) analysis found no significant differences between MST and usual services in restrictive out‐of‐home placements and arrests or convictions. Pooled results that include studies with data of varying quality tend to favor MST, but these relative effects are not significantly different from zero. The study sample size is small and effects are not consistent across studies; hence, it is not clear whether MST has clinically significant advantages over other services. Reviewers' conclusions There is inconclusive evidence of the effectiveness of MST compared with other interventions for youth. There is no evidence that MST has harmful effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia H. Littell & Melanie Popa & Burnee Forsythe, 2005. "Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth Aged 10–17," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 1-63.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:1:y:2005:i:1:p:1-63
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2005.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2005.1
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2005.1?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. Littell, Julia H., 2005. "Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 445-463, 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. Gutterswijk, Raymond V. & Kuiper, Chris H.Z. & Lautan, Navisha & Kunst, Elsemieke G. & van der Horst, Frank C.P. & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & Prinzie, Peter, 2020. "The outcome of non-residential youth care compared to residential youth care: A multilevel meta-analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Regina M. Oliver & Daniel Reschly & Joseph Wehby & Mark Lipsey, 2009. "PROTOCOL: The effectiveness of teachers’ universal classroom management practices on disruptive student behavior," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 1-20.
    4. Sesha Kethineni & Susan Frazier‐Kouassi & Yuki Shigemoto & Wesley Jennings & Stephanie M. Cardwell & Alex R. Piquero & Kimberly Gay & Dayanand Sundaravadivelu, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of parent‐engagement programs to reduce truancy and juvenile delinquency: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    5. Dave, Dhaval M., 2016. "Causal effects of mental health treatment on education outcomes for youth in the justice systemAuthor-Name: Cuellar, Alison," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 321-339.
    6. 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.
    7. Gibson, Matthew & Chesterman, Mark, 2022. "Collaborative skills development: Theory and practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    8. Laura Jaitman, 2019. "Frontiers in the economics of crime: lessons for Latin America and the Caribbean," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-36, December.
    9. Jacqueline Corcoran, 2016. "Teenage Pregnancy and Mental Health," Societies, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, July.
    10. Wells, Susan J. & Merritt, Lani M. & Briggs, Harold E., 2009. "Bias, racism and evidence-based practice: The case for more focused development of the child welfare evidence base," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 1160-1171, November.
    11. Cary, Colleen E. & McMillen, J. Curtis, 2012. "The data behind the dissemination: A systematic review of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for use with children and youth," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 748-757.

    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. Heather MacDonald & Cozette Comer & Margaret Foster & Patrick R. Labelle & Scott Marsalis & Kate Nyhan & Zahra Premji & Morwenna Rogers & Ryan Splenda & Claire Stansfield & Sarah Young, 2024. "Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), September.
    2. Crea, Thomas M. & Barth, Richard P. & Chintapalli, Laura K. & Buchanan, Rachel L., 2009. "The implementation and expansion of SAFE: Frontline responses and the transfer of technology to practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 903-910, August.
    3. McBeath, Bowen & Briggs, Harold E. & Aisenberg, Eugene, 2009. "The role of child welfare managers in promoting agency performance through experimentation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 112-118, January.
    4. 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).
    5. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    6. Myers, Diane M. & Farrell, Anne F., 2008. "Reclaiming lost opportunities: Applying public health models in juvenile justice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1159-1177, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Crea, Thomas M. & Usher, Charles L. & Wildfire, Judith B., 2009. "Implementation fidelity of Team Decisionmaking," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 119-124, January.
    9. Tom Ling, 2024. "Transferability of Lessons From Program Evaluations: Iron Laws, Hiding Hands and the Evidence Ecosystem," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 410-426, June.
    10. Preston, Mark S., 2015. "Case manager job strain in public child welfare agencies: Job demands and job control's additive effects, and instrumental feedback's mediating role," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 30-40.
    11. Cary, Colleen E. & McMillen, J. Curtis, 2012. "The data behind the dissemination: A systematic review of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for use with children and youth," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 748-757.
    12. Gorman, Dennis M. & Conde, Eugenia, 2010. "The making of evidence-based practice: The case of Project ALERT," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 214-222, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Fong, Rowena & Berger Cardoso, Jodi, 2010. "Child human trafficking victims: Challenges for the child welfare system," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 311-316, August.

    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:1:y:2005:i:1:p:1-63. 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.