Advertisement

Trajectories of change of youth depressive symptoms in routine care: shape, predictors, and service-use implications

  • Elisa NapoleoneEmail author
  • Chris Evans
  • Praveetha Patalay
  • Julian Edbrooke-Childs
  • Miranda Wolpert
Original Contribution

Abstract

Depression is one of the main reasons for youth accessing mental health services, yet we know little about how symptoms change once youth are in routine care. This study used multilevel modeling to examine the average trajectory of change and the factors associated with change in depressive symptoms in a large sample of youth seen in routine mental health care services in England. Participants were 2336 youth aged 8–18 (mean age 14.52; 77% females; 88% white ethnic background) who tracked depressive symptoms over a period of up to 32 weeks while in contact with mental health services. Explanatory variables were age, gender, whether the case was closed, total length of contact with services, and baseline severity in depression scores. Faster rates of improvement were found in older adolescents, males, those with shorter time in contact with services, closed cases, and those with more severe symptoms at baseline. This study demonstrates that when youth self-report their depressive symptoms during psychotherapy, symptoms decrease in a linear trajectory. Attention should be paid to younger people, females, and those with lower than average baseline scores, as their symptoms decrease at a slower pace compared to others.

Keywords

Trajectories of change Youth depressive symptoms Self-report Routine data Mental health 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The first, fourth and fifth authors were involved in the program of service transformation that this manuscript draws on. The fifth author led the outcomes and evaluation group that agreed the approach to measurement used in the initiative.

References

  1. 1.
    Saunders R, Cape J, Fearon P, Pilling S (2016) Predicting treatment outcome in psychological treatment services by identifying latent profiles of patients. J Affect Disord 197:107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.011 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lutz W, Rubel J, Schiefele A-K, Zimmermann D, Böhnke JR, Wittmann WW (2015) Feedback and therapist effects in the context of treatment outcome and treatment length. Psychother Res 25(6):647–660.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1053553 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owen JJ, Adelson J, Budge S, Kopta SM, Reese RJ (2016) Good-enough level and dose-effect models: variation among outcomes and therapists. Psychother Res 26(1):22–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.966346 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Percevic R, Lambert MJ, Kordy H (2006) What is the predictive value of responses to psychotherapy for its future course? Empirical explorations and consequences for outcome monitoring. Psychother Res 16(3):364–373.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300500485524 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubel J, Lutz W, Kopta SM, Köck K, Minami T, Zimmermann D, Saunders SM (2015) Defining early positive response to psychotherapy: an empirical comparison between clinically significant change criteria and growth mixture modeling. Psychol Assess 27(2):478–488.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000060 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldwin SA, Berkeljon A, Atkins DC, Olsen JA, Nielsen SL (2009) Rates of change in naturalistic psychotherapy: contrasting dose–effect and good-enough level models of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 77(2):203–211.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015235 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard KI, Kopta SM, Krause MS, Orlinsky DE (1986) The dose–effect relationship in psychotherapy. Am Psychol 41(2):159–164Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barkham M, Connell J, Stiles WB, Miles JNV, Margison F, Evans C, Mellor-Clark J (2006) Dose–effect relations and responsive regulation of treatment duration: the good enough level. J Consult Clin Psychol 74(1):160–167.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.74.1.160 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Jong K, Timman R, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L, Vermeulen P, Kooiman K, Passchier J, Busschbach JV (2014) The effect of outcome monitoring feedback to clinicians and patients in short and long-term psychotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Psychother Res 24(6):629–639.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.871079 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayes AM, Feldman GC, Beevers CG, Laurenceau J-P, Cardaciotto L, Lewis-Smith J (2007) Discontinuities and cognitive changes in an exposure-based cognitive therapy for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol 75(3):409–421.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.75.3.409 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cannon JAN, Warren JS, Nelson PL, Burlingame GM (2010) Change trajectories for the Youth Outcome Questionnaire self-report: identifying youth at risk for treatment failure. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 39(3):289–301.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15374411003691727 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warren JS, Nelson PL, Burlingame GM (2009) Identifying youth at risk for treatment failure in outpatient community mental health services. J Child Fam Stud 18(6):690–701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9275-9 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warren JS, Nelson PL, Burlingame GM, Mondragon SA (2012) Predicting patient deterioration in youth mental health services: community mental health vs. managed care settings. J Clin Psychol 68(1):24–40.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20831 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson PL, Warren JS, Gleave RL, Burlingame GM (2013) Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and early warning system accuracy in a managed care setting: youth outcomes and warning system accuracy. J Clin Psychol 69(9):880–895.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21963 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burlingame GM, Wells MG, Lambert MJ, Cox JC (2004) Youth Outcome Questionnaire. In: Maruish M (ed) The use of psychological tests for treatment planning and outcome assessment, vol 2, 3rd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 235–274Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Children’s Commissioner for England (2017) Briefing: Children’s mental healthcare in England. Children’s Commissioner, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolpert M, Jacob J, Napoleone E, Whale A, Calderon A, Edbrooke-Childs J (2016) Child- and parent-reported outcomes and experience from child and young people’s mental health services 2011–2015. CAMHS Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bear H, Edbrooke-Childs JH, Norton S, Krause K, Wolpert M (2018) Treatment response following routine mental health care among children and adolescents with anxiety and/or depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Submitted)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weersing VR, Weisz JR (2002) Community clinic treatment of depressed youth: benchmarking usual care against CBT clinical trials. J Consult Clin Psychol 70(2):299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.70.2.299 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lima NNR, do Nascimento VB, de Carvalho SMF, de Abreu LC, Neto MLR, Brasil AQ, Celestino Júnior FT, de Oliveira GF, Reis AOA (2013) Childhood depression: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 78:1417.  https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.s42402 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dekker MC, Ferdinand RF, van Lang NDJ, Bongers IL, van der Ende J, Verhulst FC (2007) Developmental trajectories of depressive symptoms from early childhood to late adolescence: gender differences and adult outcome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 48(7):657–666.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01742.x Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Department of Health (2015) Future in mind: promoting, protecting and improving out children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. Department of Health and NHS England, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bickman L, Douglas SR, De Andrade ARV, Tomlinson M, Gleacher A, Olin S, Hoagwood K (2016) Implementing a measurement feedback system: a tale of two sites. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res 43(3):410–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0647-8 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reese RJ, Toland MD, Hopkins NB (2011) Replicating and extending the good-enough level model of change: considering session frequency. Psychother Res 21(5):608–619.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.598580 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Goodman R (2005) Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain 2004. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barnes D, Wistow R, Dean R, Foster B (2006) National child and adolescent mental health service mapping exercise 2005. Durham University, School of Applied Social Sciences, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chorpita BF, Yim L, Moffitt C, Umemoto LA, Francis SE (2000) Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: a revised child anxiety and depression scale. Behav Res Ther 38(8):835–855Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chorpita BF, Moffitt CE, Gray J (2005) Psychometric properties of the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale in a clinical sample. Behav Res Ther 43(3):309–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.02.004 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Law D (2012) A practical guide to using service user feedback and outcome tools to inform clinical practice in child and adolescent mental health. Accessed 26 Aug 2014Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (2012) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, 2nd edn. Sage Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.3.2 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Team RC (2016) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-128Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Becker BJ (1988) Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. Br J Math Stat Psychol 41(2):257–278Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59(1):12Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edbrooke-Childs JH, Wolpert M, Zamperoni V, Napoleone E, Bear H (2018) Evaluation of reliable improvement rates in depression and anxiety at the end of treatment in adolescents. BJPsych Open 4(4):250–255.  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.31 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jackson DS, Keir SS, Sender M, Mueller CW (2017) Reliable change and outcome trajectories across levels of care in a mental health system for youth. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res 44(1):141–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0690-5 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patalay P, Fitzsimons E (2016) Correlates of mental illness and wellbeing in children: are they the same? Results from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(9):771–783Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Ng MY, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Vaughn-Coaxum R, Jensen-Doss A, Hawley KM, Krumholz Marchette LS, Chu BC, Weersing VR, Fordwood SR (2017) What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am Psychol 72(2):79–117.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040360 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Queen AH, Barlow DH, Ehrenreich-May J (2014) The trajectories of adolescent anxiety and depressive symptoms over the course of a transdiagnostic treatment. J Anxiety Disord 28(6):511–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.007 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lutz W, Leach C, Barkham M, Lucock M, Stiles WB, Evans C, Noble R, Iveson S (2005) Predicting change for individual psychotherapy clients on the basis of their nearest neighbors. J Consult Clin Psychol 73(5):904–913.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.73.5.904 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boswell JF, Kraus DR, Miller SD, Lambert MJ (2015) Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychother Res 25(1):6–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.817696 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families and University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations