We have located links that may give you full text access.
Treatment Outcome of Adolescent Inpatients With Early-Onset and Adolescent-Onset Disruptive Behavior.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 2017 April
OBJECTIVE: Unlike adolescents with adolescent-onset (AO) disruptive behavior, adolescents with early-onset (EO) disruptive behavior may not benefit from treatment.
METHOD: Using Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) ratings at admission and discharge of adolescent inpatients with EO (n = 85) and AO (n = 60) disruptive behavior treatment outcome was determined by (a) a change in mean scores and (b) the Reliable Change Index. For a subgroup, ratings on the Satisfaction Questionnaire Residential Youth Care for Parents (n = 83) were used to verify the treatment outcome.
RESULTS: Inpatients with EO disruptive behavior had a higher risk of dropout (44.4%) from treatment than the AO group (24.7%). Among the treatment completers, both onset groups reported improvements on the SCL-90-R, with 26.9% recovering and 31.7% improving. Inpatients who reported improvement were mostly rated as improved by their parents (r = .33).
CONCLUSION: As EO inpatients are more likely to drop out, interventions should aim at motivating youngsters to continue treatment, particularly given the poor outcome in this group. Treatment may benefit both groups because those EO youths who stayed in treatment improved to the same extent as AO inpatients.
METHOD: Using Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) ratings at admission and discharge of adolescent inpatients with EO (n = 85) and AO (n = 60) disruptive behavior treatment outcome was determined by (a) a change in mean scores and (b) the Reliable Change Index. For a subgroup, ratings on the Satisfaction Questionnaire Residential Youth Care for Parents (n = 83) were used to verify the treatment outcome.
RESULTS: Inpatients with EO disruptive behavior had a higher risk of dropout (44.4%) from treatment than the AO group (24.7%). Among the treatment completers, both onset groups reported improvements on the SCL-90-R, with 26.9% recovering and 31.7% improving. Inpatients who reported improvement were mostly rated as improved by their parents (r = .33).
CONCLUSION: As EO inpatients are more likely to drop out, interventions should aim at motivating youngsters to continue treatment, particularly given the poor outcome in this group. Treatment may benefit both groups because those EO youths who stayed in treatment improved to the same extent as AO inpatients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app