Age and gender differences in health-related quality of life of children and adolescents in Europe: a multilevel analysis

OBJECTIVES: To determine age and gender differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in children and adolescents across 12 European countries using a newly developed HRQOL measure (KIDSCREEN). METHODS: The KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire was filled in by 21,590 children and adolescents aged 8-18 from 12 countries. We used multilevel regression analyses to model the hierarchical structure of the data. In addition, effect sizes were computed to test for gender differences within each age group. RESULTS: Children generally showed better HRQOL than adolescents (P < 0.001). While boys and girls had similar HRQOL at young age, girls' HRQOL declined more than boys' (P < 0.001) with increasing age, depending on the HRQOL scale. There was significant variation between countries both at the youngest age and for age trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, gender and age differences in children's and adolescents' HRQOL across Europe were assessed using a comprehensive and standardised instrument. Gender and age differences exist for most HRQOL scales. Differences in HRQOL across Europe point to the importance of national contexts for youth's well-being.

Addressing Multilevel Program Complexity by Evaluation Design

In this paper, we present the evaluation design for a complex multilevel program recently introduced in Switzerland. The evaluation embraces the federal level, the cantonal program level, and the project level where target groups are directly addressed. We employ Pawson and Tilley’s realist evaluation approach, in order to do justice to the varying context factors that impact the cantonal programs leading to varying effectiveness of the implemented activities. The application of the model to the canton of Uri shows that the numerous vertical and horizontal relations play a crucial role for the program’s effectiveness. As a general learning for the evaluation of complex programs, we state that there is a need to consider all affected levels of a program and that no monocausal effects can be singled out in programs where multiple interventions address the same problem. Moreover, considering all affected levels of a program can mean going beyond the borders of the actual program organization and including factors that do not directly interfere with the policy delivery as such. In particular, we found that the relationship between the cantonal and the federal level was a crucial organizational factor influencing the effectiveness of the cantonal program.

The enduring effects of psychodynamic treatments vis-à-vis alternative treatments: A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis

Although evidence suggests that the benefits of psychodynamic treatments are sustained over time, presently it is unclear whether these sustained benefits are superior to non-psychodynamic treatments. Additionally, the extant literature comparing the sustained benefits of psychodynamic treatments compared to alternative treatments is limited with methodological shortcomings. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a rigorous test of the growth of the benefits of psychodynamic treatments relative to alternative treatments across distinct domains of change (i.e., all outcome measures, targeted outcome measures, non-targeted outcome measures, and personality outcome measures). To do so, the study employed strict inclusion criteria to identify randomized clinical trials that directly compared at least one bona fide psychodynamic treatment and one bona fide non-psychodynamic treatment. Hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) was used to longitudinally model the impact of psychodynamic treatments compared to non-psychodynamic treatments at post-treatment and to compare the growth (i.e., slope) of effects beyond treatment completion. Findings from the present meta-analysis indicated that psychodynamic treatments and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally efficacious at post-treatment and at follow-up for combined outcomes (k=20), targeted outcomes (k=19), non-targeted outcomes (k=17), and personality outcomes (k=6). Clinical implications, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed.