Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions for young people aged 10 to 18 with harmful sexual behaviour

Sneddon, Helga; Grimshaw, Dina Gojkovic; Livingstone, Nuala; Macdonald, Geraldine

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009829.pub2

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, our findings expand current knowledge on specific treatment effects in JSOs. A recent Cochrane systematic review (Sneddon et al, 2020) analyzed CBT interventions compared with other treatments for adolescents with harmful sexual behaviors and identified four randomized studies. However, none of these studies included an outcome measure of criminal recidivism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies found advantages of offense related CBT compared with other treatments for reducing cognitive distortions (Karakosta, 2015) and aggressive behaviors (Apsche et al, 2005) and for enhancing victim empathy (Mathe, 2004). However, due to the clear limitations of these studies (e.g., small sample sizes, drop-outs excluded from analyses, and missing study information on possible biases), Sneddon et al (2020) concluded that they could not tell whether CBT reduces harmful sexual behaviors in male adolescents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few head-to-head comparisons have been published to explore differences in the efficacy of offense-oriented therapy and social skills training in the prevention of JSO sexual and general recidivism. In fact, a recent Cochrane Review of randomized-controlled trials identified only four such studies (Sneddon et al, 2020), with mixed evidence of the superiority of one of these treatment components over the other. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of offending-specific skills-based approaches (as represented by ThePaS-I) versus general socioemotional skills training (as represented by ThePaS-II) in JSOs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What Kind of Therapy Works With Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended? A Randomized-Controlled Trial of Two Versions of a Specialized Cognitive Behavioral Outpatient Treatment Program

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is ongoing debate about whether specialized treatment is effective to reduce sexual recidivism in juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs). Although most treatment programs are based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles for preventing sexual offending, accordant scientific evidence is poor. Following CONSORT guidelines, the present study aimed to evaluate two versions of a short-term outpatient treatment program for JSOs in Switzerland: (a) the Therapy Program for Adequate Sexual Behaviors Version 1 (ThePaS-I), which included offending-specific skills training; (b) the ThePaS-II, which included general socioemotional skills training. Based on changes in self-reported mental health, sexual behaviors, victim empathy, and therapist-rated risk, as well as comprehensive data on sexual and general recidivism, we found some similarities regarding the effects of the two treatments. ThePaS-II showed better short-term changes in self-reported mental health than the ThePaS-I. However, JSOs in the ThePaS-I showed lower rates of sexual reoffending (but not general reoffending) after treatment than those in the ThePaS-II. Despite some methodological limitations, the current findings favor offending-specific skills-based therapy over general skills-based ones for preventing sexual reoffenses. The findings may encourage further methodologically sound studies to examine different treatment approaches for juveniles and adults who have committed criminal offenses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Kind of Therapy Works With Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended? A Randomized-Controlled Trial of Two Versions of a Specialized Cognitive Behavioral Outpatient Treatment Program

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some review authors (e.g. Sneddon et al, 2020;Mitchell et al, 2012) suggested that they would have liked to have seen detail examining the mechanisms of change, but there was often insufficient information in evaluations to facilitate this (Livingstone et al, 2013). This reflects a growing appetite for 'robust' evaluations of 'effectiveness' of youth crime prevention interventions coupled with a systematic analysis of what is working, where and why.…”

Section: Table 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“… Implementation: We found that reviews either failed to consider Implementation (Sneddon et al, 2020;Littell et al, 2005) or were unable to consider this due to a lack of detail in the selected research (e.g. Livingstone et al, 2013;Wilson et al 2018).…”

Section: Table 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for context: a review of “what works” reviews of interventions to prevent youth offending using the EMMIE Framework

Case

Sutton

Greenhalgh

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to examine the extent to which “What Works” reviews in youth justice enable understanding of the features of effectiveness (what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why?) specified in the Effects–Mechanisms–Moderators–Implementation–Economic cost (EMMIE) framework. Design/methodology/approach The EMMIE framework examined findings within a sample of “What Works” style reviews of preventative youth justice intervention effectiveness. Findings “What Works” style reviews of evaluations of preventative youth justice interventions often omit the requisite details required to examine all of the necessary elements of effectiveness contained within the EMMIE framework. While effectiveness measures were typically provided, the dominant evaluation evidence-base struggles to consider moderators of effect, mechanisms of change, implementation differences and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, “What Works” samples cannot facilitate sufficient understanding of “what works for whom, in what circumstances and why?”. The authors argue that Realist Synthesis can fill this gap and shed light on the contexts that shape the mechanisms through which youth justice interventions work. Originality/value The authors extended the approach adopted by an earlier review of effectiveness reviews (Tompson et al., 2020), considering more recent reviews of the effectiveness of preventative interventions using the EMMIE framework. Unlike previous reviews, the authors prioritised the utility of the EMMIE framework for assessing the factors affecting the effectiveness of preventative interventions in youth justice.

show abstract