Cost‐effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus usual treatment for young people with antisocial problems

Vermeulen, Karin M.; Jansen, Daniëlle; Knorth, Erik J.; Buskens, Erik; Reijneveld, Sijmen A.

doi:10.1002/cbm.1988

Cited by 17 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cost-benefit ratio of FFT compared to MST in the US has been shown to be in favor of FFT (Lee et al 2012 ). In the Netherlands, Vermeulen et al ( 2017 ) compared MST to treatment as usual, including FFT, and found MST to be more cost-effective. Thus, cost-effectiveness depends on the context of the study (e.g., sample or country).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With a growing body of research examining evidence-based treatment, and given today’s stringent health care budgets, it seems only logical to allocate youth to a more intensive and likely more expensive treatment (i.e., MST) only when there is no effective alternative (i.e., FFT; Aos et al 2004 ; Asscher et al 2013 ; Vermeulen et al 2017 ). By comparing evidence-based interventions, budget allocation and the assignment of youth to the right interventions can be optimized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy Compared on their Effectiveness Using the Propensity Score Method

Eeren

Goossens

Busschbach

et al. 2018

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) have overlapping target populations and treatment goals. In this study, these interventions were compared on their effectiveness using a quasi-experimental design. Between October, 2009 and June, 2014, outcome data were collected from 697 adolescents (mean age 15.3 (SD 1.48), 61.9% male) assigned to either MST or FFT (422 MST; 275 FFT). Data were gathered during Routine Outcome Monitoring. The primary outcome was externalizing problem behavior (Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self Report). Secondary outcomes were the proportion of adolescents living at home, engaged in school or work, and who lacked police contact during treatment. Because of the non-random assignment, a propensity score method was used to control for observed pre-treatment differences. Because the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model guided treatment assignment, effectiveness was also estimated in youth with and without a court order as an indicator of their risk level. Looking at the whole sample, no difference in effect was found with regard to externalizing problems. For adolescents without a court order, effects on externalizing problems were larger after MST. Because many more adolescents with a court order were assigned to MST compared to FFT, the propensity score method could not balance the treatment groups in this subsample. In conclusion, few differences between MST and FFT were found. In line with the RNR model, higher risk adolescents were assigned to the more intensive treatment, namely MST. In the group with lower risk adolescents, this more intensive treatment was more effective in reducing externalizing problems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10802-017-0392-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy Compared on their Effectiveness Using the Propensity Score Method

Eeren

Goossens

Busschbach

et al. 2018

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has shown that adolescents from families involved with youth care are twice more likely to be placed out of home than are adolescents from families not involved with youth care (Lightfoot, Hill, & LaLiberte, ). Though out‐of‐home placement is sometimes inevitable and necessary to avoid further escalation of problems or to guarantee child safety, it leads to high emotional and societal financial costs (Allen, Lowe, Moore, & Brophy, ; Lee et al, ; Vermeulen, Jansen, Knorth, Buskens, & Reijneveld, ). Research suggests that families experiencing a multitude of difficulties, such as families with members who have an intellectual disability, are best treated with home‐based, flexible, integrated and multicomponent services (Tausendfreund et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effects of multisystemic therapy for adolescents with intellectual disabilities and antisocial or delinquent behaviour and their parents

Blankestein

Rijken

Eeren

et al. 2019

Research Intellect Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAn adaptation of multisystemic therapy (MST) was piloted to find out whether it would yield better outcomes than standard MST in families where the adolescent not only shows antisocial or delinquent behaviour, but also has an intellectual disability.MethodTo establish the comparative effectiveness of MST‐ID (n = 55) versus standard MST (n = 73), treatment outcomes were compared at the end of treatment and at 6‐month follow‐up. Pre‐treatment differences were controlled for using the propensity score method.ResultsMultisystemic therapy‐ID resulted in reduced police contact and reduced rule breaking behaviour that lasted up to 6 months post‐treatment. Compared to standard MST, MST‐ID more frequently resulted in improvements in parenting skills, family relations, social support, involvement with pro‐social peers and sustained positive behavioural changes. At follow‐up, more adolescents who had received MST‐ID were still living at home.ConclusionsThese results support further development of and research into the MST‐ID adaptation.

show abstract

“…Fluctuations in available budget play a role in the choices that governments and policymakers make about how children are protected and what services they receive. Without a good impression of the (cost-)effectiveness of interventions and services that are offered in child welfare, it is impossible to make well-informed policy decisions on investments in innovations in care [ 3 ]. Therefore, the current study focused on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a method that is increasingly used in child welfare, namely Family Group Conferencing (FGC).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support.MethodsA subgroup of a larger randomized controlled trial, comprising 69 families in child welfare (experimental group: n = 46; control group: n = 23), was included.ResultsNo additional effects of FGC on child safety, social support and only short-term positive effects on empowerment were found. There were no differences in costs between FGC and CAU. The chance for FGC to be cost-effective was small. For families who refused FGC, the FGC approach was more cost-effective than CAU, whereas it was less cost-effective for families that prepared or completed FGC.ConclusionsOverall, FGC is not (cost-)effective in improving child safety, empowerment and social support, but cost-effectiveness varies at different levels of FGC-completion.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register number NTR4320. Registered 17 December 2013.

show abstract

Cost‐effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus usual treatment for young people with antisocial problems

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy Compared on their Effectiveness Using the Propensity Score Method

Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy Compared on their Effectiveness Using the Propensity Score Method

Evaluating the effects of multisystemic therapy for adolescents with intellectual disabilities and antisocial or delinquent behaviour and their parents

Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About