Advertisement

Kind en adolescent

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 91–107 | Cite as

Effectiviteit van de jeugdzorg: passen en meten

  • Ron ScholteEmail author
Artikelen
  • 757 Downloads

Samenvatting

Bij het bepalen van de effectiviteit van zorg heeft de nadruk zeer sterk gelegen op de zogenaamde ‘evidence based practice’ (EBP), waarbij het vaak ging over ‘bewezen effectieve behandelingen’. Wat echter steeds bleek: de behandelingen verschillen van elkaar, maar ze lijken heel sterk op elkaar wat betreft hun resultaten. Om het vraagstuk van het verbeteren van de effectiviteit op te lossen, zullen niet alleen de specifiek werkzame elementen of technieken van de interventies in kaart moeten worden gebracht, maar ook de algemeen werkzame factoren. Eén daarvan wordt in de literatuur vooral veel als belangrijke factor genoemd: de alliantie (de werkrelatie tussen therapeut en cliënt). Het voorgaande betekent dat we de interventies en EBP minder als uitgangspunten moeten nemen voor effectiviteit van de zorg, maar veel meer nadruk moeten leggen op de individuele cliënt en gepersonaliseerde zorg. Een cruciale rol is daarin weggelegd voor het voor en tijdens de behandeling meten van de afname van de problemen en de kwaliteit van de alliantie, en voor het benutten van deze data. Dit kan via feedbacksystemen (Feedback Informed Treatment, FIT). Uiteindelijk heeft de gepersonaliseerde zorg de potentie om de jeugdzorg te optimaliseren.

Trefwoorden

effectiviteit jeugdzorg gepersonaliseerde zorg 

The effectiveness of youth care: getting the right fit

Abstract

The past two decades have witnessed an increased emphasis on evidence-based treatments as the best way of providing effective care. More recently, in view of the finding that differences between treatments only have a marginal effect on treatment outcomes, techniques or common elements have been assumed to be more predictive for outcomes. At the same time it has been established that common factors, especially the therapeutic alliance, predict treatment outcomes. All of these findings suggest that if we want to improve youth care, we should opt for practice-based evidence instead of evidence-based practice. More specifically, youth care can benefit from Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT), a data-based approach in which different types of data on each individual client are gathered and used in treatment. As such, FIT will enhance personalized treatment, i.e. treatment that focuses on individual clients, applying information about the individual client (e.g. diagnoses and demands), the treatment (e. g. alliance and common elements), and the context (e. g. the quality of the care offered). Ultimately, personalized treatment has the potential to optimize youth care.

Keywords

effectiveness youth care personalized treatment 

Literatuur

  1. Atzil-Slonim, D., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Schiefele, A. K., & Peri, T. (2015). Therapeutic bond judgments: congruence and incongruence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 773–784.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnhoorn, J., Broeren, S., Distelbrink, M., De Greef, M., Van Grieken, A., Jansen, W., Pels, T., Pijnenburg, H., & Raat, H. (2013). Cliënt-, professional- en alliantiefactoren: hun relatie met het effect van zorg voor jeugd. Verkenning van kennis en kennishiaten voor het ZonMw-programma Effectief werken in de jeugdsector. Den Haag: ZonMw.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, R. P., Lee, B. R., Lindsey, M. A., Collins, K. S., Strieder, F., Chorpita, B. F., Bekcer, K. D., & Sparks, J. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice at a crossroad: the timely emergence of common elements and common factors. Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickman, L., Andrade, A. R. V. de, Athay, M. M., Chen, J. I., De Nadai, A. S., Jordan-Athur, B. L., & Karver, M. S. (2012). The relationship between change in therapeutic alliance ratings and improvement in youth symptom severity: Whose ratings matter the most? Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 39, 78–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickman, L., Lyon, A. R., & Wolpert, M. (2016). Achieving precision mental health through effective assessment, monitoring, and feedback processes. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 43, 271–276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chorpita, B. F., & Daleiden, E. L. (2009). Mapping evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: application of the distillation and matching model to 615 treatments from 322 randomized trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 566–579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Identifying and selecting the common elements of evidence based interventions: a distillation and matching model. Mental Health Services Research, 7, 5–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chorpita, B. F., Weisz, J. R., Daleiden, E. L., Schoenwald, S. K., Palinkas, L. A., et al. (2013). Long-term outcomes for the Child STEPs randomized effectiveness trial: a comparison of modular and standard treatment designs with usual care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 999–1009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Wampold, B. E., & Hubble, M. A. (2010). The heart and soul of change: delivering what works in therapy (2e druk.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elvins, R., & Green, J. (2008). The conceptualization and measurement of therapeutic alliance: an empirical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1167–1187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008). Evidence-based kernels: fundamental units of behavioral influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 75–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannan, C., Lambert, M., Harmon, C., Nielsen, L. S., Smart, D. W., & Shimokawa, K. (2005). A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 155–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Helm, G. H. P. van der, Genabeek, M. van, Stams, G. J. J. M., & Laan, P. H. van der (2011). Violence in youth prison: the role of group climate and personality. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 1, 23–40.Google Scholar
  15. Hitchcock, J. H., Kratichwull, T. R., & Chezan, L. C. (2015). What works clearinghouse standards and generalization of single-case design evidence. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horvath, A., Del Re, A. C., Fluckiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9–16.Google Scholar
  17. Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2006). Meta-analysis of therapeutic relationship variables in youth and family therapy: the evidence for different relationship variables in the child and adolescent treatment outcome literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 50–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents. In M. J. Lambert (red.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5e druk. pag. 543–589). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Child psychotherapy research: issues and opportunities. In L. Mayes, P. Fonagy & M. Target (red.), Developmental science and psychoanalysis: integration and innovation (pag. 193–223). London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, S. D., Bickman, L., & Norwood, E. (2010). Evidence-based treatments and common factors in youth psychotherapy. In B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller, B. E. Wampold & M. A. Hubble (red.), The heart and soul of change: delivering what works in therapy (2e druk. pag. 325–355). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of parenting: a meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1973–1995.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamers, A. (2016). Towards a strong parent-team alliance for improved treatment outcomes in child residential psychiatry. dissertatie, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
  23. Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: a common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51, 467–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, B. R., Ebesutani, C., Kolikovski, K. M., Bekcer, K. D., Lindsey, M. A., et al. (2014). Program and practice elements for placement prevention: a review of interventions and their effectiveness in promoting home-based care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 244–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., & Kivlighan Jr., D. M. (2012). Examining patients’ and other group members’ agreement about their alliance to the group as a whole and changes in patient symptoms using response surface analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 197–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. May, A., & Mathijssen, J. (2015). Alternatieven voor RCT bij de evaluatie van effectiviteit van interventies!? Den Haag, Utrecht, Tilburg: ZonMw, UMC Utrecht, Tranzo.Google Scholar
  27. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., et al. (2013). The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques. Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 81–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, S. D., Hubble, M. A., Chow, D., & Seidel, J. (2015). Beyond measures and monitoring: realizing the potential of feedback-informed treatment. Psychotherapy, 52, 449–457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Muñiz Peña, C. de la, Friedlander, M., & Escudero, V. (2009). Frequency, severity, and evolution of split family alliances: How observable are they? Psychotherapy Research, 19, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra (2016). http://www.nfu.nl/programma/doen-of-laten-terugdringen-van-onnodige-zorg/status/. Geraadpleegd op: 16 december 2016.
  31. Ng, M. Y., & Weisz, J. R. (2016). Annual research review: building a science of personalized intervention for youth mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 216–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nissen-Lie, H. A., Havik, O. E., Høglend, P. A., Rønnestad, M. H., & Monsen, J. T. (2015). Patient and therapist perspectives on alliance development: therapists’ practice experiences as predictors. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 22, 317–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Os, J. van, Kahn, R., Denys, D., Schoevers, R. A., Beekman, A. T. F., et al. (2012). ROM: gedragsnorm of dwangmaatregel? Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, 54, 245–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Robbins, M. S., Mayorga, C. C., Mitrani, V. B., Szapocznik, J., Turner, C. W., & Alexander, J. F. (2008). Adolescent and parent alliances with therapists in brief strategic family therapy with drug-using Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 316–328.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sapyta, J., Riemer, M., & Bickman, L. (2005). Feedback to clinicians: theory, research, and practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 145–153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, J., & Young, A. H. (2016). Psychotherapies should be assessed for both benefit and harm. British Journal of Psychiatry, 208, 208–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Spanjaard, H. J., Veerman, J. W., & Yperen, T. A. van (2015). De kern van effectieve jeugdhulp. Van erkende interventies naar werkzame elementen. Orthopedagogiek: Onderzoek en Praktijk, 54, 441–455.Google Scholar
  38. Trimbos Instituut (2015). Implementatie van ROM ter ondersteuning van de dagelijkse zorgpraktijk in de GGZ Google Scholar
  39. Tryon, G. S., Blackwell, S. C., & Hammel, E. F. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of client-therapist perspectives of the working alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 629–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. de Volkskrant 22-2-2014. Specialisten komen met lijst onzinbehandelingen.Google Scholar
  41. de Volkskrant 7-8-2016. Britse tandartsen trekken nodeloos duizenden tanden en kiezen.Google Scholar
  42. Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: empirically, “all must have prices”. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warren, J. S., Nelson, P. L., & Burlingame, G. M. (2009). Identifying youth at risk for treatment failure in outpatient community mental health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 690–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warren, J. S., Nelson, P. L., Mondragon, S. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Burlingame, G. M. (2010). Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and outcome in usual care: community mental health versus managed care settings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 144–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisz, J. R., Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2006). Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons. American Psychologist, 61, 671–689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisz, J. R., Kuppens, S., Eckshtain, D., Ugueto, A. M., Hawley, K. M., & Jensen-Doss, A. (2013). Performance of evidence-based youth psychotherapies compared with usual clinical care: a multilevel meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 750–761.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wienke, D., Anthonijsz, I., Abrahamse, S., Daamen, W., & Nieuwboer, A. (2014). Beoordeling anti-pestprogramma’s: Rapportage van de commissie voor het Ministerie Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (OCW). Utrecht: NJi.Google Scholar
  48. Wampold, B. E. (2009). Clinical trials and positivism: restricted evidence can be misleading. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 642–643.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud Universiteit NijmegenNijmegenNederland

Personalised recommendations