Cunningham, Megan

AbstractObjectiveThe goal of the current study is to advance efforts to increase the quality of care for childhood anxiety disorder (CADs) through (1) detailing the content of community‐based treatment sessions, (2) exploring the validity of therapist surveys, (3) examining the influence of setting differences, and (4) testing the effects of a technology‐based training on use of nonexposure strategies.MethodsThirteen therapists were randomly assigned to technology‐based training in the use of exposure therapy or treatment as usual (TAU) for CADs. Therapeutic techniques were coded from 125 community‐based treatment sessions.ResultsConsistent with survey responses community therapists spent the majority of session time reviewing symptoms (34% of session time), implementing nonexposure cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; 36%), and rarely engaged in exposure (3%). An integrated behavioral health setting was associated with greater endorsement of exposure on survey, p < 0.05, although this difference was not significant in session recordings, p = 0.14. Multilevel models indicated that technology‐based training that has been shown to increase exposure, also decreased use of nonexposure CBT techniques (2% vs. 29%, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe study supports the validity of survey‐based findings that community‐based care for CADs consists of non‐exposure CBT techniques. Efforts should be invested in dissemination of within‐session exposure.

Objective: This report describes data regarding the acceptability of delivering a family-based behavioral lifestyle intervention for adolescent obesity in a brief, intensive onsite program (initial 3 sequential days + 1 follow-up day) combined with telephonic wellness coaching (WC). Methods: Four cohorts consisting of 7 adolescents aged 15–17 years (self-identifying as 4 male, 2 female, 1 transgender male; 6 White, 1 African American and White) and thirteen parents participated in a new clinical intervention consisting of 3 days onsite programming, 3-months telephonic wellness coaching, and 1 day onsite follow up. Enrollment, attendance, and retention were recorded. Participants provided quantitative and qualitative feedback regarding acceptability of the program during postintervention interviews. Results: Of 11 families invited, 8 enrolled. Seven families participated, with 1 family lost to follow up. Adolescents completed an average 5.6/9 planned WC sessions. Adolescents rated the program positively overall and liked experiential sessions best. However, participants reported the onsite program was too long, they encountered barriers to sustained engagement during wellness coaching follow up, and parents desired greater guidance and structure for their involvement. Conclusions: Combining in-person sessions with telephonic wellness coaching was acceptable to participants, but intervention refinement is needed. Future program development and research investigating hybrid models should consist of briefer in-person sessions, emphasize skill practice, and include ongoing guidance to parents to provide developmentally appropriate support. Implications for Impact Statement This new clinical program evaluation found that extending onsite family-based behavioral lifestyle intervention for adolescent obesity with telephonic wellness coaching was acceptable to participants, but that program refinement is needed. Feedback highlighted the importance of keeping onsite sessions brief, engaging adolescents with hands-on skill practice, and providing ongoing guidance to parents to support sustained adolescent engagement in behavior change.