Adapting CBT for youth anxiety: Flexibility, within fidelity, in different settings.

Anxiety disorders are common in youth, associated with impairments in daily functioning, and often persist into adulthood when untreated. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety is a well-established intervention and has been modified to fit several treatment settings. Despite decades of results supporting the efficacy of CBT, there is a large gap in access to this treatment and a need to consider how it can best be administered flexibly to increase uptake and personalization. We first discuss the core components of treatment for CBT through the lens of the Coping Cat treatment. Next, we review the empirical findings regarding adjustments made for CBT for youth anxiety delivered (a) in schools, (b) in community settings, (c) through telehealth, (d) through online computer programs, and (e) by caregivers at home. In each setting, we provide specific suggestions for how to implement CBT with flexibility while maintaining fidelity.

CBT for Youth Anxiety: How Does It Fit Within Community Mental Health?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review (1) the empirical literature for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for youth anxiety delivered in community settings, (2) the use of online delivery methods in this process, and (3) identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of CBT for youth anxiety in community mental health clinics (CMHCs). We provide suggestions for future work. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analytic reviews of effectiveness studies suggest that outcomes comparable to those of efficacy studies can be achieved in community settings, particularly when in-session exposures occur. Several online programs support delivery of these services, with an evidence base that is promising. The notable barrier to the implementation of services is the cost of implementation and sustainability. Organizational factors such as leadership, culture, and climate are consistently identified as barriers and facilitators depending on their valence and appear to be related to implementation outcomes (e.g., on provider attitudes). The current findings need to be integrated into future studies, with a focus on further identifying facilitators (e.g., champions and online programs) of implementation. There is also the need for efforts to address organizational and individual barriers and to compare ways to reduce costs.