Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Approximately half of children with anxiety disorder(s) or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) derive insufficient benefit from first-step evidence-based treatments, including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy. Few studies have examined second-step treatment options, and clinical guidelines offer limited direction on subsequent care. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises current evidence on interventions for children and adolescents with anxiety disorders or OCD, who showed insufficient response to prior evidence-based treatment. We examined how studies operationalised partial response and non-response, which second-step treatments were provided, and the efficacy of second-step treatments. Five databases were systematically searched up to 21 March 2025, and 40 studies with 49 treatment arms (N = 1,373) were included, most of which were uncontrolled (k = 35 of 40 studies) and were identified as a high risk of bias. There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, reflecting variety in operationalisations of partial and non-response, and among first-step and second-step treatments. Included second-step interventions were CBT, pharmacotherapy, or combined treatments. Sixteen of the 40 included studies examined second-step interventions in a stepped-care context. Within-group meta-analyses showed large, statistically significant pooled effects of second-step treatments for symptom reduction and general functioning from pre-treatment to post-treatment and to follow-up, both for anxiety disorders and OCD. Remission rates ranged from 6% to 82.4%. Pooled remission rates were 49% at post-treatment and 67% at follow-up for anxiety studies, and 39% at post-treatment and 53% at follow-up for OCD studies. Drop-outs during second-step treatments ranged from 0% to 36.4%, with a pooled drop-out rate of 8% for anxiety studies and 9% for OCD studies. Subgroup analyses on second-step treatment type (CBT, pharmacotherapy, combined) revealed no statistically significant difference between subgroups on any outcome. Overall, the lack of well-designed, controlled stepped-care studies precludes reliable conclusions regarding the efficacy of second-step treatments for youth who benefited insufficiently from initial treatment, despite preliminary indications of positive pre-post changes in symptoms and remission from uncontrolled studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ganzevoort et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: