Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a behavior of increasing prevalence in adolescents with links to various negative mental health and adjustment outcomes. Poor emotion expression has been linked with NSSI use, whereas the use of adaptive coping strategies has been identified as a protective factor against NSSI. The current study examined whether specific coping strategies moderate the relation between poor emotion expression and NSSI, and whether moderation is conditional on adolescent gender. Ninety-five adolescents hospitalized on an acute care inpatient psychiatric unit completed questionnaires measuring NSSI, emotion expression and use of specific coping strategies (i.e., problem-focused coping, positive reframing coping, support seeking, avoidance, and distraction). Results indicated that poor emotion expression was positively associated with NSSI. Positive reframing and support seeking emerged as significant moderators of the poor emotion expression—NSSI link. This result was not conditional upon adolescent gender. Problem-focused coping, avoidance, and distraction did not emerge as significant moderators. Encouraging youth to use particular coping strategies might protect against the negative impact of emotion expression deficits for both boys and girls.

Objective: Implementation of evidence-based treatments in funded trials is often supported by expert case consultation for clinicians; this may be financially and logistically difficult in clinical practice. Might less costly implementation support produce acceptable treatment fidelity and clinical outcomes? Method: To find out, we trained 42 community clinicians from four community clinics in Modular Approach to Therapy for Children (MATCH), then randomly assigned them to receive multiple lower-cost implementation supports (LC) or expert MATCH consultation plus lower-cost supports (CLC). Clinically referred youths (N = 200; ages 7-15 years. M = 10.73; 53.5% male; 32.5% White. 27.5% Black, 24.0% Latinx, 1.0% Asian, 13.5% multiracial, 1.5% other) were randomly assigned to LC (n = 101) or CLC (n = 99) clinicians, and groups were compared on MATCH adherence and competence, as well as on multiple clinical outcomes using standardized measures (e.g.. Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report) and idiographic problem ratings (Top Problems Assessment). Results: Coding of therapy sessions revealed substantial therapist adherence to MATCH in both conditions, with significantly stronger adherence in CLC; however, LC and CLC did not differ significantly in MATCH competence. Trajectories of change on all outcome measures were steep, positive, and highly similar for LC and CLC youths, with no significant differences; a supplemental analysis of posttreatment outcomes also showed similar LC and CLC posttreatment scores, with most LC-CLC differences nonsignificant. Conclusions: The findings suggest that effective implementation of a complex intervention in clinical practice may be supported by procedures that are less costly and logistically challenging than expert consultation.