Search

Attachment-based family therapy (ABFT; Diamond G.S. et al., 2014 ) is an empirically supported treatment designed to capitalize on the innate, biologically based, caregiving instinct and adolescent need for attachment security. This therapy is grounded in attachment and emotional processing theory and provides an interpersonal, process-oriented, trauma-informed approach to treating adolescents struggling with suicide and associated problems such as depression and trauma. ABFT offers a clear structure and road map to help therapists quickly address the attachment ruptures that lie at the core of family conflict, which can fuel adolescent distress. Several clinical trials and process studies have demonstrated empirical support for the model and its proposed mechanisms of change. In this paper, we provide an overview of the theories underlying the model, the clinical strategies that guide the treatment, the outcome research that demonstrates efficacy, and the process research that explores the proposed mechanisms of change.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of attachment-based family therapy (ABFT) compared with a family-enhanced nondirective supportive therapy (FE-NST) for decreasing adolescents’ suicide ideation and depressive symptoms. Method: A randomized controlled trial of 129 adolescents who are suicidal ages 12- to 18-years-old (49% were African American) were randomized to ABFT (n = 66) or FE-NST (n = 63) for 16 weeks of treatment. Assessments occurred at baseline and 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. Trajectory of change and clinical recovery were calculated for suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Results: There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of change in self-reported ideation (Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr; F1,127 = 181, p = .18). Similar results were found for depressive symptoms. However, adolescents receiving ABFT showed a significant decrease in suicide ideation (t127 = 12.61, p < .0001; effect size, d = 2.24). Adolescents receiving FE-NST showed a similar significant decrease (t127 = 10.88, p < .0001; effect size, d = 1.93). Response rates (ie, ≥50% decrease in suicide ideation symptoms from baseline) at post-treatment were 69.1% for ABFT versus 62.3% for FE-NST. Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, ABFT did not perform better than FE-NST. The 2 treatments produced substantial decreases in suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms that were comparable to or better than those reported in other more intensive, multicomponent treatments. The equivalent outcomes could be attributed to common treatment elements, different active mechanisms, or regression to the mean. Future studies will explore long-term follow up, secondary outcomes, and potential moderators and mediators. Clinical trial registration information: Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Suicidal Adolescents; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01537419. Published (Publication status)

To evaluate whether Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) is more effective than Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) for reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in adolescents.This was a randomized controlled trial of suicidal adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17, identified in primary care and emergency departments. Of 341 adolescents screened, 66 (70% African American) entered the study for 3 months of treatment. Assessment occurred at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. ABFT consisted of individual and family meetings, and EUC consisted of a facilitated referral to other providers. All participants received weekly monitoring and access to a 24-hour crisis phone. Trajectory of change and clinical recovery were measured for suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms.Using intent to treat, patients in ABFT demonstrated significantly greater rates of change on self-reported suicidal ideation at post-treatment evaluation, and benefits were maintained at follow-up, with a strong overall effect size (ES = 0.97). Between-group differences were similar on clinician ratings. Significantly more patients in ABFT met criteria for clinical recovery on suicidal ideation post-treatment (87%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.6-99.6) than patients in EUC (51.7%; 95% CI = 32.4-54.32). Benefits were maintained at follow-up (ABFT, 70%; 95% CI = 52.6-87.4; EUC 34.6%; 95% CI = 15.6-54.2; odds ratio = 4.41). Patterns of depressive symptoms over time were similar, as were results for a subsample of adolescents with diagnosed depression. Retention in ABFT was higher than in EUC (mean = 9.7 versus 2.9).ABFT is more efficacious than EUC in reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Additional research is warranted to confirm treatment efficacy and to test the proposed mechanism of change (the Family Safety Net Study).Clinical Trial Registry Information: Preventing Youth Suicide in Primary Care: A Family Model, URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, unique identifier: NCT00604097.

Objective To evaluate whether Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) is more effective than Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) for reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Method This was a randomized controlled trial of suicidal adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17, identified in primary care and emergency departments. Of 341 adolescents screened, 66 (70% African American) entered the study for 3 months of treatment. Assessment occurred at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. ABFT consisted of individual and family meetings, and EUC consisted of a facilitated referral to other providers. All participants received weekly monitoring and access to a 24-hour crisis phone. Trajectory of change and clinical recovery were measured for suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Results Using intent to treat, patients in ABFT demonstrated significantly greater rates of change on self-reported suicidal ideation at post-treatment evaluation, and benefits were maintained at follow-up, with a strong overall effect size (ES = 0.97). Between-group differences were similar on clinician ratings. Significantly more patients in ABFT met criteria for clinical recovery on suicidal ideation post-treatment (87%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.6–99.6) than patients in EUC (51.7%; 95% CI=32.4–54.32). Benefits were maintained at follow-up (ABFT, 70%; 95% CI=52.6–87.4; EUC 34.6%; 95% CI=15.6–54.2; odds ratio=4.41). Patterns of depressive symptoms over time were similar, as were results for a subsample of adolescents with diagnosed depression. Retention in ABFT was higher than in EUC (mean = 9.7 versus 2.9). Conclusions ABFT is more efficacious than EUC in reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Additional research is warranted to confirm treatment efficacy and to test the proposed mechanism of change (the Family Safety Net Study). Clinical Trial Registry Information: Preventing Youth Suicide in Primary Care: A Family Model, URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, unique identifier: NCT00604097.

Purpose To determine (1) whether physicians agree with recommendations for home and school drug screening, (2) under what circumstances physicians recommend urine drug tests for adolescents, and (3) how physicians manage adolescent patients with positive results. Few clinical practice guidelines have been published on urine drug testing of adolescents, and it is not known when physicians recommend this procedure or how they manage positive results. Methods Multi-modal survey of a nationally representative sample of physicians conducted April–July 2004. We computed simple frequencies and used backwards selection logistical regression to determine if there were differences in agreement or practices among physicians from different specialties (pediatrics, family medicine, adolescent medicine) or by demographic factors (physician age, gender, practice type or location). Results A total of 359 physicians (43% after eliminating ineligibles) completed the survey. Thirty-eight percent would recommend a drug test if were required to return to school, 41% if a parent was concerned, and 46% based on history (without a parent's concern). Forty-eight percent of physicians would share a positive drug test result with parents. A large majority (83%) disagreed with high school drug testing programs. Conclusions There is little consensus among physicians regarding the indications for drug testing in the general medical clinic. However, most disagree with school drug testing programs. There is little consistency among physicians in how to proceed when a urine drug test is positive. Professional organizations should consider publishing clinical practice guidelines in order to assist physicians in using this procedure effectively.