Is the Right Research Being Done to Guide the Development of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's Practice Parameters?

Kia Golmoradi, Jake X. Checketts, Gretchan Moore, Matt Vassar, Tara R. Buck

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) developed Practice Parameters (PPs) to provide recommendations regarding the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Each recommendation comes with a rating, based on the level of evidence. In descending order, recommendations are rated as a clinical standard (CS), clinical guideline, or clinical option (CO), as well as recommendations that are “not endorsed” due to ineffectiveness or contraindication. According to the PPs, a recommendation is rated as a CS if it is supported by “rigorous empirical evidence and/or overwhelming clinical consensus,” whereas, the lower quality recommendations, rated as COs, are founded on “emerging empirical evidence (e.g. uncontrolled trials or case series/reports) or clinical opinion, but lack strong evidence and/or strong clinical consensus.” Based on the current definition, clinicians may be perpetuating practices that are based on as little as expert opinion. We are aware that AACAP is in the process of transitioning from PPs to Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), which will embody a systematic approach to reconcile recommendations with national guidelines. In accordance with these higher standards, we believe that our evaluation of the research gaps will elucidate the need to encourage resource allocation in deficient areas.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)516-518
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Volume57
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Adolescent Psychiatry
Child Psychiatry
Consensus
Research
Guidelines
Resource Allocation
Expert Testimony
Practice Guidelines
Mental Disorders
Mental Health
Therapeutics

Cite this

@article{3248466c9d3847a88ac53d416b014c25,
title = "Is the Right Research Being Done to Guide the Development of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's Practice Parameters?",
abstract = "The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) developed Practice Parameters (PPs) to provide recommendations regarding the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Each recommendation comes with a rating, based on the level of evidence. In descending order, recommendations are rated as a clinical standard (CS), clinical guideline, or clinical option (CO), as well as recommendations that are “not endorsed” due to ineffectiveness or contraindication. According to the PPs, a recommendation is rated as a CS if it is supported by “rigorous empirical evidence and/or overwhelming clinical consensus,” whereas, the lower quality recommendations, rated as COs, are founded on “emerging empirical evidence (e.g. uncontrolled trials or case series/reports) or clinical opinion, but lack strong evidence and/or strong clinical consensus.” Based on the current definition, clinicians may be perpetuating practices that are based on as little as expert opinion. We are aware that AACAP is in the process of transitioning from PPs to Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), which will embody a systematic approach to reconcile recommendations with national guidelines. In accordance with these higher standards, we believe that our evaluation of the research gaps will elucidate the need to encourage resource allocation in deficient areas.",
author = "Kia Golmoradi and Checketts, {Jake X.} and Gretchan Moore and Matt Vassar and Buck, {Tara R.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaac.2018.03.018",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "516--518",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry",
issn = "0890-8567",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is the Right Research Being Done to Guide the Development of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's Practice Parameters?

AU - Golmoradi, Kia

AU - Checketts, Jake X.

AU - Moore, Gretchan

AU - Vassar, Matt

AU - Buck, Tara R.

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) developed Practice Parameters (PPs) to provide recommendations regarding the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Each recommendation comes with a rating, based on the level of evidence. In descending order, recommendations are rated as a clinical standard (CS), clinical guideline, or clinical option (CO), as well as recommendations that are “not endorsed” due to ineffectiveness or contraindication. According to the PPs, a recommendation is rated as a CS if it is supported by “rigorous empirical evidence and/or overwhelming clinical consensus,” whereas, the lower quality recommendations, rated as COs, are founded on “emerging empirical evidence (e.g. uncontrolled trials or case series/reports) or clinical opinion, but lack strong evidence and/or strong clinical consensus.” Based on the current definition, clinicians may be perpetuating practices that are based on as little as expert opinion. We are aware that AACAP is in the process of transitioning from PPs to Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), which will embody a systematic approach to reconcile recommendations with national guidelines. In accordance with these higher standards, we believe that our evaluation of the research gaps will elucidate the need to encourage resource allocation in deficient areas.

AB - The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) developed Practice Parameters (PPs) to provide recommendations regarding the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Each recommendation comes with a rating, based on the level of evidence. In descending order, recommendations are rated as a clinical standard (CS), clinical guideline, or clinical option (CO), as well as recommendations that are “not endorsed” due to ineffectiveness or contraindication. According to the PPs, a recommendation is rated as a CS if it is supported by “rigorous empirical evidence and/or overwhelming clinical consensus,” whereas, the lower quality recommendations, rated as COs, are founded on “emerging empirical evidence (e.g. uncontrolled trials or case series/reports) or clinical opinion, but lack strong evidence and/or strong clinical consensus.” Based on the current definition, clinicians may be perpetuating practices that are based on as little as expert opinion. We are aware that AACAP is in the process of transitioning from PPs to Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), which will embody a systematic approach to reconcile recommendations with national guidelines. In accordance with these higher standards, we believe that our evaluation of the research gaps will elucidate the need to encourage resource allocation in deficient areas.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049110247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.03.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.03.018

M3 - Letter

C2 - 29960698

AN - SCOPUS:85049110247

VL - 57

SP - 516

EP - 518

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

SN - 0890-8567

IS - 7

ER -