4.5 Review

Practitioner Review: School refusal: developments in conceptualisation and treatment since 2000

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12848

关键词

Anxiety; cognitive behaviour therapy; fears; phobias; school attendance; school refusal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A generation has passed since the literature on the conceptualisation, assessment and treatment of school refusal was reviewed in this journal (Elliott, ). In the light of considerable gaps in the literature, identified at that time, and growing international interest, the current paper sought to identify progress subsequently made this century. Methods We open with discussion of continuing conceptual uncertainty as to whether school refusal should incorporate both truancy and absenteeism marked by anxiety and distress. We then consider progress in treatment, and conclude by examining prognosis and subsequent adult functioning. In selecting intervention studies for review, our primary focus has been upon RCTS, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results The literature review indicates that, since the turn of the century, there has been little substantial advance in knowledge that can guide practitioners. Many of the issues raised in the 1999 paper, in particular, conceptual confusion over this heterogeneous condition, a dearth of rigorous RCT designs, limited knowledge of underlying mechanisms and uncertainty as to the long-term effects of specific forms of intervention, are little clearer than before. Conclusions While several sound publications are available to guide intervention for school refusal, there is a continuing need for rigorous studies that can provide evidence to support individualised and tailored responses to an incapacitating problem with many causes and manifestations. While a multisystemic response to intervention approach is considered attractive, the practicalities of operating this across disparate professional borders are likely to present a long-term challenge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据