The Taxonomy of Care for Youth was developed to gather information about the care offered to children and adolescents with behavioral and emotional problems in various care settings. The aim was to determine similarities and differences in the content of care and thereby to classify the care offered to these children and youth within and across care organizations.
Method:
Interventions (N = 56) offered in primary health care, child and youth care, and mental health care were assessed by using descriptors. Professionals scored the degree of applicability of these descriptors and interventions with similar descriptors were merged.
Results:
As a result, the interventions could be classified into 7 main types of support and the total number of interventions reduced to 27.
Conclusion:
The descriptors used in this study were able to classify the various kinds of care offered based on their content, thereby creating an overview of distinct interventions.
AbrahamC.MichieS. (2008). A taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379–387.
2.
BallingerC.AsburnA.LowJ.RoderickP. (1999). Unpacking the black-box of therapy. A pilot study to describe occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions for people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 13, 301–309.
3.
CjazaS. J.SchulzR.LeeC. C.BelleS. H. (2003). A methodology for describing and decomposing complex psychosocial and behavioral interventions. Psychology and Aging, 18, 385–395.
4.
ChorpitaB. F.DaleidenE. 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.
5.
DeJongG.HornS. D.GassawayJ. A.SlavinM. D.DijkersM. P. (2004). Towards a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: Using an inductive approach to examine the “black box” of rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 85, 678–686.
6.
EvenboerK. E.HuyghenA. M. N.TuinstraJ.ReijneveldS. A.KnorthE. J. (2012). Taxonomic systems in the field of health care, family care, and child and youth care: A systematic overview of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2304–2310.
7.
EvenboerK. E.HuyghenA. M. N.TuinstraJ.KnorthE. J.ReijneveldS. A. (2012). A taxonomy of care for youth: Results of an empirical development procedure. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 637–646.
8.
EvenboerK. E.HuyghenA. M. N.TuinstraJ.KnorthE. J.ReijneveldS. A. (2014). Looking into care: The reliability and feasibility of a Taxonomy of Care for Youth. Accepted for publication in theJournal of Social Work.
9.
EzellM.SpathR.ZeiraA.CanaliC.FernandezE.ThoburnJ.VecchiatoT. (2011). An international classification system for child welfare programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1847–1854.
10.
FeinE. (2002). The black box. Accounting for program inputs when assessing outcomes. In MaluccioA. N.CanaliC.VecchiatoT. (Eds.), Assessing outcomes in child and family services. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
11.
FonagyP.TargetM.CottrellD.PhillipsJ.KurtzZ. (2002). What works for whom? A critical review of treatments for children and adolescents. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
12.
GarlandA. F.Brookman-FrazeeL.HurlburtM. S.AccursoE. C.ZoffnessR. J.Haine-SchlagelR.GangerW. (2010). Mental health care for children with disruptive behavior problems: A view inside therapists’ offices. Psychiatric Services, 61, 788–795.
13.
HardenB. J.KleinS. (2011). Infants/toddlers in child welfare: What have we learned and where do we go from here?Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1464–1468.
14.
HibbsE. D. (2001). Evaluating empirically based psychotherapy research for children and adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 3–11.
15.
JagerM.ReijneveldS. A.MetselaarJ.KnorthE. J.De WinterA. F. (2014), Discrepancies between adolescents’ attributed relevance and experiences regarding communication are associated with poorer client participation and learning processes in psychosocial care. Patient Education and Counseling. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.08.020
16.
KazdinA. E. (2000). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents. Directions for research and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
KnorthE. J.ReijneveldS. A.Van EijkL. M.NoordikF. W.TuinstraJ. (2011). Sticking closely to the social–emotional development of three thousand children inside and outside care. Kind en Adolescent Praktijk, 10, 192–194(in Dutch).
18.
LeeB. R.BarthR. P. (2011). Defining group care programs: An index of reporting standards. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40, 253–266.
19.
LibbyA. M.Saranga CoenA.PriceD. A.SilvermanK.OrtonH. D. (2005). Inside the black box: What constitutes a day in a residential treatment centre?International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 176–183.
20.
Lloyd-EvansB.JohnsonS.SladeM. (2007). Assessing the content of mental health services: A review of measures. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 673–682.
21.
LoeffenM.OomsH.WijgergangsH. (2004). An organizational model is a must for effective care of children and youth. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Jeugdzorg, 7, 102–113(in Dutch).
22.
MarshJ. C.AngellB.AndrewsC. M.CurryA. (2012). Client–provider relationship and treatment outcome: A systematic review of substance abuse, child welfare, and mental health services research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 12, 233–267.
23.
MaschiT.HatcherS. S.SchwalbeC. S.RosatoN. S. (2008). Mapping the social service pathways of youth to and through the juvenile justice system: A comprehensive review. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1376–1385.
24.
MichieS.HyderN.WaliaA.WestR. (2011). Development of a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in individual behaviour support for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 315–319.
25.
MillerJ.RoweW. (2009). Cracking the black box: What makes an arts intervention program work?Best Practices in Mental Health: An International Journal, 5, 52–64.
26.
Netherlands Youth Institute. (2013). Dutch youth institute. Retrieved August 14, 2013, fromhttps://www.nji.nl
27.
Ten BrinkL. T.VeermanJ. W.De KempR. A. T.BergerM. A. (2004). Implemented as intended? Recording family worker activities in a Families First program. Child Welfare, 83, 197–215.
28.
Van der LindenD.De GraafI. (2010). State of the art. Acquaintance with and use of evidence-based interventions in child and youth mental health care services. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Trimbos Institute (in Dutch).
29.
Van YperenT. A.Van RestE.VermuntC. (1999). Programmes in child and youth care: The definition of core concepts. Utrecht, The Netherlands: NIZW Publishers (in Dutch).
30.
VeermanJ. W.JanssensJ. M. A. M.DelicatJ. W. (2005). Effectiveness of intensive home-based child and family care: A meta-analysis. Pedagogiek, 25, 176–196 (in Dutch).
31.
VeermanJ. W.Van YperenT. (2008). A perspective on effectiveness. Handbook on practice-driven outcome research in care for youth. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon (in Dutch).
32.
WadeJ.BiehalN.FarrellyN.SinclairI. (2011). Caring for abused and neglected children. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
33.
YohalemN.Wilson-AhlstromA. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 350–357.
34.
ZwikkerM.Van DaleD.KuundersM. (2009). Committee accreditation of interventions: Method and procedure. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Netherlands Youth Institute/National Institute for Public Health and Environment (in Dutch).
