Decades of clinical psychological science have produced empirically supported treatments that are now undergoing dissemination and implementation (DI) but with little guidance from a science that is just taking shape. Charting a future for DI science (DIS) and DI practice (DIP), and their complex relationship, will be complicated by significant challenges—the implementation cliff (intervention benefit drops when tested practices are scaled up), low relevance of most clinical research to actual practice, and differing timetables and goals for DIP versus DIS. To address the challenges, and prepare the next generation of clinical psychological scientists, we propose the following: making intervention research look more like practice, solving the “too many empirically supported treatments” problem, addressing mismatches between interventions and their users (e.g., clients, therapists), broadening the array of intervention delivery systems, sharpening outcome monitoring and feedback, incentivizing high-risk/high-gain innovations, designing new professional tracks, and synchronizing and linking the often-insular practice and science of DI.

With the development of empirically supported treatments over the decades, have youth psychotherapies grown stronger? To investigate, we examined changes over time in treatment effects for four frequently treated youth mental-health problems: anxiety, depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and conduct disorders. We used PubMed and PsycINFO to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published between January 1960 and May 2017 involving youths between the ages of 4 and 18 years. We also searched reviews and meta-analyses of youth psychotherapy research, followed reference trails in the reports we identified, and obtained additional studies identified by therapy researchers whom we contacted. We identified 453 RCTs (31,933 participants) spanning 53 years (1963–2016). Effect sizes for the problem-relevant outcome measures were synthesized via multilevel meta-analysis. We tracked temporal trends for each problem domain and then examined multiple study characteristics that might moderate those trends. Mean effect size increased nonsignificantly for anxiety, decreased nonsignificantly for ADHD, and decreased significantly for depression and conduct problems. Moderator analyses involving multiple study subgroups showed only a few exceptions to these surprising patterns. The findings suggest that new approaches to treatment design and intervention science may be needed, especially for depression and conduct problems. We suggest intensifying the search for mechanisms of change, making treatments more transdiagnostic and personalizable, embedding treatments within youth ecosystems, adapting treatments to the social and technological changes that alter youth dysfunction and treatment needs, and resisting old habits that can make treatments unduly skeuomorphic.

Most youth psychotherapy research involves conditions quite unlike the clinical practice it is designed to strengthen. Most studies have not tested interventions with clinically referred youths and practicing clinicians in clinical care settings, nor have they tested whether new treatments produce better outcomes than usual practice. Limited exposure to real-world conditions and questions may partially explain why empirically supported treatments show such modest effects when tested under more representative conditions, against usual care. Our deployment-focused model calls for intervention development and testing with the kinds of participants (e.g., clients and clinicians) and in the contexts (e.g., clinics) for which the interventions are ultimately intended, and for randomized comparisons to usual clinical care. Research with the Child STEPs (system and treatment enhancement projects) treatment approach illustrates the methods and potential benefits of the deployment-focused model. Findings supporting Child STEPs are but one part of a rich research matrix needed to shrink the gap between intervention research and clinical practice.

Meta-analyses show that psychotherapies are effective in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents. However, these effects are usually reported in terms of effect sizes. For patients and clinicians, it is important to know whether patients achieve a clinically significant improvement or deterioration. We conducted such a meta-analysis to examine response, clinically significant change, clinically significant deterioration and recovery as outcomes. We searched four bibliographic databases and included 40 randomised trials comparing psychotherapy for youth depression against control conditions. We used a validated method to estimate outcome rates, based on means, standard deviation and N at baseline and post-test. We also calculated numbers-need-to- treat (NNT). The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 39% (95% CI: 34–45) and 24% (95% CI: 0.19–28) in control conditions (NNT: 6.2). The difference between therapy and control was still significant at 6–12 months after baseline (NNT=7.8). Clinically significant improvement was found in 54% of youth in therapy, compared with 32% in control groups (NNT=5.3); clinically significant deterioration was 6% in therapy, 13% in controls (NNT=5.1); recovery was 58% in therapy, 36% in controls (NNT=3.3). Smaller effects were found in studies with low risk of bias. Psychotherapies for depression in youth are effective compared to control conditions, but more than 60% of youth receiving therapy do not respond. More effective treatments and treatment strategies are clearly needed. Trial registrationhttps://osf.io/84xka

To address implementation challenges faced by some evidence-based youth psychotherapies, we developed an efficient transdiagnostic approach—a potential “first course” in evidence-based treatment (EBP)—guided by five empirically supported principles of therapeutic change. An open trial of the resulting FIRST protocol was conducted in community clinics. Following a 2-day training, staff practitioners treated 24 clinically referred youths ages 7–15, 50% male, 87% White and 13% Latino, all with the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) anxiety, depressive, or conduct-related disorders, and averaging 2.21 disorders. We evaluated the protocol’s (a) feasibility for use in everyday clinical practice (examining therapy process, client engagement, and therapist adherence and competence in using the protocol), (b) acceptability (examining therapeutic alliance and treatment satisfaction by youths, caregivers, and therapists), and (c) potential for clinical benefit (examining treatment outcomes across multiple measures and time points). FIRST scored well on measures of feasibility, acceptability to clients and clinicians, and clinical outcomes, matching or exceeding the corresponding scores in most benchmarking comparisons. Observational coding of sessions showed high levels of protocol adherence (86.6%) and good therapist competence in the evidence-based skills. Weekly assessments throughout treatment showed effect sizes for clinical improvement ranging from .41 to 2.66 on weekly total problems and problems deemed “most important” by caregivers and youths. The FIRST protocol showed evidence of feasibility, acceptability, and clinical benefit when used by practitioners with referred youths treated in community clinics. The findings suggest sufficient potential to justify a full randomized controlled trial of FIRST.

Subthreshold depression has been found to be associated with considerable impairment and an increased risk of developing major depression. Although several randomized trials have examined the effects of psychological interventions for subthreshold depression in children and adolescents, no meta-analysis has integrated the results of these trials. We searched 4 bibliographic databases and included randomized trials comparing psychological interventions with control conditions in children and adolescents scoring above a cut-off of a depression questionnaire but not meeting diagnostic criteria for major depression (or persistent depressive disorder) according to a diagnostic interview. Effect sizes and incidence rates of major depression were pooled with random effects meta-analyses. A total of 12 trials with 1,576 children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. The overall effect size indicating the difference between treatment and control at post-test was g = 0.38 (95% CI = 0.14-0.63), which corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 8.4. Heterogeneity was moderate to high (I² = 61; 95% CI = 28-79), and there was significant risk of publication bias (p < .04). The 2 studies in children less than 12 years of age showed nonsignificant effects (g = 0.01; 95% CI = -1.16 to 1.18). We found no significant effect on the incidence of major depression at follow-up (relative risk = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.25-1.08), although this may be related to low statistical power. Interventions for subthreshold depression may have positive acute effects in adolescents. There is currently insufficient evidence, however, that these interventions are effective in children less than 12 years of age, or that they prevent the onset of major depression at follow-up.