↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005650.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bengt-Åke Armelius, Tore Henning Andreassen

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) appears to be effective in the treatment of antisocial behavior both in adolescents and adults. Treatment of antisocial behavior in youth in residential settings is a challenge since it usually involves more serious behavioral problems and takes place in a closed setting. The motivation for change is usually low and there is little possibility to address the maintenance of any behavioral changes following release. To investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing recidivism of adolescents placed in secure or non-secure residential settings. A secondary objective was to see if interventions that focus particularly on criminogenic needs are more effective than those with a more general focus on cognitions and behavior. We searched a number of databases including: CENTRAL 2005 (Issue 2), MEDLINE 1966 to May 2005, Sociological Abstracts 1963 to May 2005, ERIC 1966 to November 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International 1960s to 2005. We contacted experts in the field concerning current research. Both randomised controlled trials and studies with non-randomized comparison groups were included. Participants had to be young people aged 12-22 and placed in a residential setting for reasons of antisocial behavior. Two reviewers independently reviewed 93 titles and abstracts; 35 full-text reports were retrieved and data from 12 trials eligible for inclusion were extracted and entered into RevMan. Results were synthesized using a random effects model, due to the significant heterogeneity across included studies. Results are reported at 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and presented in graphical (forest plots) form. Odds ratios are used throughout and intention-to-treat analyses were made with drop-outs imputed proportionally. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods and 95% confidence intervals were used. The results for 12 months follow-up show that although single studies generally show no significant effects, the results for pooled data are clearly significant in favor of CBT compared to standard treatment with an odds ratio of 0,69. The reduction in recidivism is about 10% on the average. There is no evidence of effects after 6 or 24 months or when CBT is compared to alternative treatments. CBT seems to be a little more effective than standard treatment for youth in residential settings. The effects appear about one year after release, but there is no evidence of more long-term effects or that CBT is any better than alternative treatments.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 197 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Student > Master 28 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 43 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 15%
Social Sciences 30 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 51 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,631,089
of 17,009,769 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,104
of 11,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,647
of 266,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,009,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.