Effectiveness of Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Suicidal Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Effectiveness of Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Suicidal Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Poul M. Schulte-Frankenfeld 1,2 , Josefien J. F. Breedvelt 3,4 , Marlies E. Brouwer 1 , Nadia van der Spek 1 , Guy Bosmans 5 , Claudi L. Bockting 1,4,6 [1] Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [2] Department of Pediatric Neurology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. [3] Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom. [4] Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [5] Department of Clinical Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. [6] Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717, https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 Received: 2024-01-15 • Accepted: 2024-08-12 • Published (VoR): 2024-12-20 Handling Editor: Winfried Rief, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany Corresponding Author: Claudi L. Bockting, Meibergdreef 5, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. phone: +31 20 566 9111. E-mail: c.l.bockting@amsterdamumc.nl Supplementary Materials: Code, Data, Materials, Preregistration [see Index of Supplementary Materials] Abstract Background: Suicide is a leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults. While only few evidence-based treatments with limited efficacy are available, family processes have recently been posed as a possible alternative target for intervention. Here, we review the evidence for Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT), a guideline-listed treatment targeting intrafamilial ruptures and building protective caregiver-child relationships. Method: PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were searched for prospective trials on ABFT in youth published up until November 6th, 2023, and including measures of suicidality. Results were independently screened by two researchers following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 framework. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted on suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms post-intervention scores in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Results: Seven articles reporting on four RCTs (n = 287) and three open trials (n = 45) were identified. Mean age of participants was Mpooled = 15.2 years and the majority identified as female This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited. https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.32872/cpe.13717&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-12-20 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0244-9226 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1864-1861 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9972-9058 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4767-6553 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9057-6027 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9220-9244 https://www.psychopen.eu/ https://cpe.psychopen.eu/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (~80%). Overall, ABFT was not significantly more effective in reducing youth suicidal ideation, gpooled = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.93], nor depressive symptoms, gpooled = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.84], compared to investigated controls (Waitlist, (Enhanced) Treatment as Usual, Family-Enhanced Nondirective Supportive Therapy). Conclusion: Evidence is strongly limited, with few available trials, small sample sizes, high sample heterogeneity, attrition rates, and risk of bias. While not generally superior to other treatments, ABFT might still be a clinically valid option in specific cases and should be further investigated. Clinicians are currently recommended to apply caution when considering ABFT as stand-alone intervention for suicidal youth and to decide on a case-by-case basis. Keywords suicide, suicidal ideation, adolescents, young adults, psychotherapy, family therapy Highlights • Current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of ABFT is strongly limited. • Meta-analysis showed no improved effect on suicidal ideation nor depressive symptoms compared to other treatments. • ABFT might still be a clinically valid option in specific cases and should be further investigated. • Implications and recommendations for researchers and practitioners are discussed in the article. Suicide is the fourth most prevalent cause of death in adolescents and young adults worldwide (World Health Organization, 2021). In 2019, more than 157.700 youths aged 15 to 29 died prematurely by intentional self-harm, accounting for about 8% of all deaths and the majority of Years of Life Lost in this cohort (Castelpietra et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2020). Many of these cases are preceded by risk factors and early warning signs such as depressive symptoms, being part of a sexual minority group, expression of suicidal ideas, previous self-harm, or contact with primary health services, and could thus potentially be prevented through targeted treatment (Bachmann, 2018; Chiang et al., 2021; Fergusson et al., 2005; Jackman et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Walby et al., 2018). Several psychological interventions that might help to attenuate the suicidal trajectory are available (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT)). However, efficacy of these interventions for adolescent populations was found to be low overall and has stagnated for decades (Busby et al., 2020; Fox et al., 2020; Franklin et al., 2017; Kothgassner et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2018; Tarrier et al., 2008). Thus, developing more effective interventions to prevent adolescent suicide is warranted (Holmes et al., 2018). Increasing attention has recently been paid to the role that early childhood interper­ sonal and relational factors might play in the development and trajectory of mental ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 2 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ health problems and suicidal thoughts and behaviors (Chu et al., 2017; Franzoi et al., 2024; Van Orden et al., 2010). Having strong and positive interpersonal connections to family members and friends was found to be protective in this regard, and the absence of such resulting in feelings of loneliness was a risk factor respectively (Gunn et al., 2018; McClelland et al., 2020). At the same time, disturbing aspects of interpersonal relations and familial environments, such as conflicts, constant negative evaluation, childhood trauma, physical abuse, and neglect, can be perceived as major stressors by individuals at risk and contribute to the suicidal trajectory (Carballo et al., 2020; King & Merchant, 2008). Although accumulating evidence suggests that interpersonal relations, specifically in the context of adolescents’ family environments, could be strong targets for preventive interventions, there are only few family-focused interventions available (Frey et al., 2022; Sullivan et al., 2023). One such family-focused intervention for suicidal youths is Attachment-Based Family Therapy, which targets interpersonal ruptures between youth at risk of suicide and their primary caregivers (G. S. Diamond, 2022; G. S. Diamond et al., 2014). Developed upon the assumption that the quality of familial relations can trigger, exacerbate, and buffer against suicide trajectories, this 16-week treatment protocol addresses interperso­ nal traumata and dysfunctional interaction patterns in a therapist-guided systematic process. In contrast to currently prevalent treatments mainly targeting patients’ thought patterns and behavior (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy), the five critical treatment tasks in ABFT focus on identifying factors that damaged intrafamilial trust, motivating patients and caregivers to rediscover their innate desire for mutual closeness, and building mature, regulated, and empathic interaction patterns. Adolescents’ autonomy and developmental responsibility are encouraged, and caregivers are supported in developing an empathic, empowering, and unconditionally accepting stance toward their youths. By the end of treatment, attachment security is expected to be improved, building the foundation for future positive development and alleviation of symptoms. A full description of underlying theory and mechanisms can be found in the original manual and a more recent review (G. S. Diamond et al., 2014, 2016). Attachment-Based Family Therapy is currently listed as a ‘promising’ intervention for youth depression and suicidal ideation at the California Evidence-based Clearing House for Child Welfare, with ratings based on three randomized-controlled trials and four moderation studies published up until 2018 (G. S. Diamond et al., 2002, 2010, 2012; Shpigel et al., 2012; Israel & Diamond, 2013; Feder & Diamond, 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2018; CEBC, 2020). It is further mentioned as a possible intervention for youth suffering from moderate to severe depression in the NICE guidelines (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019). In recent years, increasing interest in interpersonal treatments for youth suicide bore new evidence, and new results ought to be considered in clinical guidelines and practice. Importantly, more recently published reviews on ABFT remain mostly narrative and do not provide a systematic approach to its evaluation, or do Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 3 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ not examine the efficacy of ABFT for youth suicidality specifically (G. S. Diamond et al., 2016, 2021; Sullivan et al., 2023; van Aswegen et al., 2023). One recently published meta-analysis on the effect of family-based treatments in youth finds a significant overall treatment benefit of family-therapy over comparator therapies for suicidal ideation, but not depressive symptoms (Waraan et al., 2023). However, this review pools together different types of family-based therapies (e.g. Family-focused Cognitive Behavioral Ther­ apy, Systems Integrative Family Therapy), thus not allowing to assess the individual efficacy of ABFT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise and assess the current evidence for the effectiveness of Attachment-Based Family Thera­ py in treating suicidal adolescents and young adults. Method Search Strategy and Selection Criteria This review follows the PRISMA guidelines, was initially performed in August 2021 and updated on November 6th, 2023, and preregistered at PROSPERO (CRD42021271731, see Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-a). PubMed (Ovid MEDLINE® All 1946 to November 03, 2023), PsycINFO (APA PsycInfo 1806 – October Week 4 2023), and Embase (Embase Classic + Embase, 1946 – 2023 November 03) were searched for trials indexed for the search term “attachment-based family therapy” up until November 06th, 2023, using the Ovid interface (version 05.09.00.005). Scopus (November 06, 2023) was searched in titles, abstracts, and keywords. No further filters were applied. Snowballing was performed to identify non-indexed studies by examining published reviews, reference lists of included trials, and contacting expert authors. Search results were deduplicated using ProQuest Refworks. Two reviewers independently screened all records based on titles and abstracts using Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Studies were eligible if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) sample of adolescents and young adults aged ten years and older; (2) ABFT treatment; (3) suicidality measured at post-treatment through diagnostic methods (e.g., clinical interviews, SIQ-JR, BSS, SIDAS); (4) longitudinal or prospective design; (5) written in English, Dutch, or German. Review papers, expert opinions, and case reports were exclu­ ded. Potentially eligible records were further assessed on a full-text basis. Risk of bias of eligible records was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 framework (Appendix A, Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-c). Consensus about deviant decisions was reached by unblinded discussion and consulting a senior author. A list of screened articles (Schulte- Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-b) and a PRISMA Flow Diagram (Figure 1) are available. ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 4 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram for the Systematic Review Data Extraction and Statistical Analysis Primary outcome was the difference in suicidality severity at post-treatment between ABFT and respective control conditions. Further measures of the patient’s idiosyncratic condition (e.g. BDI-II, HAM-D) were collected if available. Demographic information (population type, age, country), study characteristics (N, design, conditions), outcome measures, and statistical factors necessary to calculate effect sizes were extracted by one author and independently checked by two others. All authors of included articles were contacted to request Individual Participant Data, and additionally summary sta­ tistics when reported outcome data was insufficient to calculate effect sizes. When Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 5 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ measurement data from multiple post-baseline timepoints was given, the timepoint most immediate to the end of treatment was used. Recalculating effect sizes based on means and standard deviations was preferred, and data transformations were applied following Cochrane guidelines where necessary (Higgins et al., 2023). Calculations were performed using RStudio in version 2023.03.0+386 following guide­ lines by Harrer and colleagues (Harrer et al., 2021; RStudio Team, 2021). Hedge’s g was used as effect size measure to correct for small sample bias, expressing the magnitude of difference between group means in units of pooled standard deviation. Although it is commonly interpreted with cut-offs (small (< 0.2), medium (~0.5), and large (> 0.8)) these thresholds are arbitrary and lack solid statistical and empirical foundations. Therefore, they should be interpreted only as rough guidelines within this review (Cuijpers et al., 2014). A random effects model using the Hartung-Knapp method was applied as consid­ erable heterogeneity among studies was expected (van Aert & Jackson, 2019; Zeraatkar et al., 2020). Cochran’s Q was used to assess homogeneity (α < .05), and I 2 to quantify how much variability can be attributed to between-study heterogeneity (low: ≤ 25%, medium: 26%–50%, high: > 50%). A prediction interval (95% PI) was calculated to estimate the range in which true effect sizes of future replication studies are expected to fall (IntHout et al., 2016). Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of colour-enhanced funnel plots. The {tidyverse} package v2.0.0 was used for data processing, and the {esc} package v0.5.1 for calculating effect sizes (Lüdecke, 2019; Wickham et al., 2019). Pooled effect sizes and 95% CIs, measures of heterogeneity, forest plots, and funnel plots were calculated using the {meta} package v6.5-0 (Balduzzi et al., 2019). Risk of bias plots were created using the {robvis} package v0.3.0 (McGuinness, 2019). All data and calculation scripts are publicly available (Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-b). Results Study Selection PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were searched for prospective trials indexed for “attachment-based family therapy”, measuring suicidality at post-treatment in a sample of adolescents and young adults aged ten years or older, up until November 06th, 2023. Out of 370 records identified, seven articles met the inclusion criteria (n = 332), of which four were included in the meta-analysis (n = 287) (G. M. Diamond et al., 2012; G. S. Diamond et al., 2002, 2010, 2019; Russon et al., 2022; van der Spek et al., 2024; Waraan et al., 2021). See Figure 1 for the selection process. Individual Participant Data were requested from all authors, though only provided by one team despite repeated outreach attempts. Thus, an Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis was not performed. One study reported SIQ-JR data deviating between text, figures, and appendix, which only matched after multiplying reported summary scores by the number of items in the un­ ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 6 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ derlying scale (Waraan et al., 2021). Another study reported confidence intervals instead of standard deviations, for which a t-distribution conversion following the Cochrane Handbook was applied (G. S. Diamond et al., 2010; Higgins et al., 2023). Study Characteristics Characteristics of included studies are depicted in Table 1. Included trials recruited a total of 332 participants (RCTs n = 287, Open Trials n = 45) with a mean age of 15.2 years (SDpooled = 1.65, range: 12 – 25 years) and the majority identifying as female (~80%). Baseline levels of suicidal ideation, SIQ(-JR), Mpooled = 46.26, SDpooled = 17.91, and depressive symptoms BDI(-II), Mpooled = 31.59, SDpooled = 9.00, were high across trials. Het­ erogeneity between studies regarding populations, treatment protocols, study designs, and implemented control conditions was considerable. Four of the seven studies were randomized-controlled trials using the 12-week (k = 2) (G. S. Diamond et al., 2002, 2010) or 16-week (k = 2) (G. S. Diamond et al., 2019; Waraan et al., 2021) ABFT protocol, and a waitlist group (k = 1) (G. S. Diamond et al., 2002), Treatment as Usual (TAU) (Waraan et al., 2021), directly referred “enhanced” usual care (Enhanced Usual Care; EUC) (G. S. Diamond et al., 2010), or a nondirective supportive therapy augmented with psycho- educative sessions for primary caregivers (Family-Enhanced Nondirective Supportive Therapy; FE-NST) (G. S. Diamond et al., 2019) as control condition. TAU and EUC trials did not follow-up participants for the type of treatment received (G. S. Diamond et al., 2010; Waraan et al., 2021). The open non-controlled trials consisted of one study using the 16-week ABFT protocol, and two applying LGBTQ+ sensitive variants of ABFT to sexual minority youths (G. M. Diamond et al., 2012; Russon et al., 2022; van der Spek et al., 2024). Clinically significant scores of suicidal ideation were a recruitment criterion in five studies (RCTs k = 2; Open Trials k = 3), while two RCTs primarily recruited adolescents with depressive symptoms (G. S. Diamond et al., 2002; Waraan et al., 2021). Overall, trials were small, with samples ranging from 10 to 129 participants. A priori calculated recruitment targets were only met by one study (G. S. Diamond et al., 2019). One study presented a post-intervention attrition rate of ~80%, raising concerns about its validity (Waraan et al., 2021). After conducting a sensitivity analysis, we kept it for completeness. Risk of bias was high in most studies, with non-blinded assessment and selective data reporting as major issues (Appendix A and B, Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-c). Effect Sizes and Meta-Analyses Suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, as assessed through the Suicidal Ideation Ques­ tionnaire (SIQ), were the only shared measure of suicidality between studies. Since the number of recorded attempts was too low for statistical analysis (see Table 1), SIQ scores were used to compare effect sizes. Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 7 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Ta bl e 1 C ha ra ct er is tic s of S tu di es In cl ud ed in th e Sy st em at ic R ev ie w St ud y Po pu la ti on In cl us io n cr it er ia N A ge , M (S D, ra ng e) G en de r, % Fe m al e Lo ca ti on D es ig n C on di ti on s M ea su re o f ef fe ct Se co nd ar y ou tc om es A tt ri ti on ra te A dh er en ce , M (S D, ra ng e) Ba se lin e Se ve ri ty , M (SD ) Ef fe ct Si ze ,g, [9 5% C I] C lin ic al R ec ov er y Su ic id al Be ha vi or C on cl us io n R is k of Bi as D ia m on d et a l., 20 02 a D ep re ss ed yo ut h, r ef er re d by s ch oo ls a nd ca re gi ve rs M D D pr im ar y di ag no si s ac co rd in g to D SM -I II -R   32 14 .9 (1 .5 , ra ng e: 1 3 - 17 ) 78 % U SA Pi lo t R C T A BF T: 1 2 w ee ks A BF T Co nt ro l: 6 w ee ks w ai tli st SI Q BD I, H A M - D , B H S, ST A IC 3% N A SI Q : 32 .1 0 (2 0. 37 ) BD I: 25 .9 (7 .4 5) tim e: 0 .6 6 [- 0. 05 , 1 .3 8] gr ou p: 0 .3 7 [- 0. 34 , 1 .0 8] N A N A N o ef fe ct o ve r tim e, n ot su pe ri or to w ai tli st H ig h D ia m on d et a l., 20 10 a Su ic id al y ou th , re fe rr ed b y pr im ar y ca re an d em er ge nc y ro om s SI Q -J R > 31 , BD I- II > 2 0 66 15 .1 (1 .5 , ra ng e: 1 2 - 17 ) 83 % U SA RC T A BF T : 1 2 w ee ks A BF T Co nt ro l: 12 w ee ks E U C SI Q -J R SS I, BD I- II 9% A BF T: 9 .7 1 (5 .2 6) Co nt ro l: 2. 87 (3 .3 ) Si gn if ic an t g ro up di ff er en ce (Z = -4 .7 4, p < .0 01 )* SI Q -J R: 51 .0 7 (1 3. 45 ) BD I-I I: 33 .0 0 (9 .0 3) tim e: 3 .9 1 [3 .0 8, 4 .7 4] * gr ou p: 0 .8 3 [- 0. 30 , -1 .3 2] * Re m is si on (≤  1 3) : 8 7. 1% O R = 6. 30 [1 .7 6 – 22 .6 1] * Su ic id e at te m pt s (u p to 6 m on th s af te r ba se lin e) : A BF T: 1 1% (n = 4) Co nt ro l: 23 % (n = 7)   Ef fe ct o ve r tim e, s up er io r to E U C H ig h G . M . D ia m on d et a l., 2 01 2 Su ic id al L G B yo ut h LG B id en tif ic a­ tio n, S IQ -J R ≥ 31   10 15 .1 (1 .3 7, ra ng e: 1 4 - 18 ) 80 % U SA O pe n Tr ia l A BF T: 1 2 w ee ks A BF T- LG B SI Q -J R BD I- II 20 % A BF T: N A (r an ge : 8 – 16 ) SI Q -J R: 51 .0 0 (1 3. 00 ) BD I-I I: 28 .1 0 (1 3. 63 ) tim e: 3 .8 6 [2 .2 4, 5 .4 7] * Re m is si on (≤  1 3) : 8 7. 5% N A Ef fe ct o ve r tim e N A D ia m on d et a l., 20 19 a Su ic id al y ou th , re fe rr ed b y pr im ar y an d em er ge nc y ca re , i np at ie nt cl in ic s, s ch oo ls , an d se lf- re fe rr al   SI Q -J R ≥ 31 , BD I- II > 2 0 12 9 14 .8 7 (1 .6 8, ra ng e: 1 2 - 18 ) 81 .9 % U SA RC T A BF T: 1 6 w ee ks A BF T Co nt ro l: 16 w ee ks F E- N ST SI Q -J R BD I- II 18 % A BF T: 1 4. 34 (7 .5 8) Co nt ro l: 12 .6 7 (5 .7 4) N o si gn if ic an t g ro up di ff er en ce , t 12 7 = -1 .4 3, p = .1 6 SI Q -J R: 49 .8 3 (1 5. 08 ) BD I-I I: 30 .5 9 (7 .9 4) tim e: 1 .9 1 [1 .4 7, 2 .3 4] * gr ou p: 0 .1 7 [- 0. 21 , 0 .5 5] Re m is si on (<  1 2) : 3 2. 7% vs . 2 4. 4% Su ic id e at te m pt s (d ur in g tr ea tm en t) : A BF T: 3 % (n = 2) Co nt ro l: 8% (n = 4) Ef fe ct o ve r tim e, n ot su pe ri or to F E- N ST So m e co nc er n W ar aa n et a l., 20 21 a D ep re ss ed yo ut h, r ef er re d to m en ta l he al th c lin ic s C ur re nt M D E ac co rd in g to cl in ic al in te rv ie w , G RI D - H A M D > 1 5   60 14 .9 (1 .3 5, ra ng e: 1 3 - 18 ) 87 % N or w ay RC T A BF T: 1 6 w ee ks A BF T Co nt ro l: 16 w ee ks T A U SI Q -J R G RI D - H A M D , BD I- II 80 % N A SI Q -J R: 43 .0 9 (2 2. 96 ) BD I-I I: 35 .2 2 (8 .6 6) tim e: 0 .6 4 [- 0. 32 , 1 .6 1] gr ou p: 0 .1 0 [- 0. 66 , 0 .8 6] N A N A N o ef fe ct o ve r tim e, n ot su pe ri or to TA U H ig h Ru ss on e t a l., 20 22 Su ic id al LG BT Q + yo ut h LG BT Q + id en tif ic a­ tio n, S IQ -J R ≥ 31 , B D I- II ≥ 21 10 18 .2 (N A , ra ng e: 1 5 - 25 ) N A U SA O pe n Tr ia l A BF T: 1 6 w ee ks A BF T- LG BT Q + SI Q -J R BD I- II 0% A BF T: 1 5. 3 (r an ge : 1 1 – 23 ) SI Q -J R: 52 .7 0 (1 9. 36 ) BD I- II : 35 .4 0 (1 1. 92 ) tim e: 1 .4 5 [0 .4 0, 2 .5 0] * Re m is si on (≤  1 3) : 1 1% Su ic id e at te m pt s (d ur in g tr ea tm en t) : A BF T: 1 1% (n = 1)   Ef fe ct o ve r tim e N A va n de r Sp ek e t al ., 20 24 D ep re ss ed an d/ or s ui ci da l yo ut h re fe rr ed to a n ou tp at ie nt cl in ic   C lin ic al as se ss m en t, de pr es si ve an d su ic id al sy m pt om s 25 17 .1 (N A , ra ng e: 1 2 - 23 ) 74 .2 % N et he r­ la nd s O pe n Tr ia l A BF T: 1 6 w ee ks A BF T SI Q -J R C D I- 2 32 % A BF T: 8 9% c om pl et ed 10 o r m or e se ss io ns SI Q -J R: 36 .3 1 (1 1. 93 ) C D I- 2: 3 2. 07 (1 1. 48 ) tim e: 0 .7 2 [0 .0 9, 1 .3 5] * N A Su ic id e at te m pt s (d ur in g tr ea tm en t) : A BF T: 1 4% (n = 4) Ef fe ct o ve r tim e N A N ot e. Ef fe ct s iz es fo r pr im ar y ou tc om es c al cu la te d as w ith in -g ro up e ff ec t o ve r tim e fo r th e A BF T g ro up (t im e) a nd b et w ee n gr ou ps a t p os t- tr ea tm en t ( gr ou p) . S am pl e si ze (N ) r ep re se nt s th e to ta l n um be r of p ar tic ip an ts in cl ud ed in th e re sp ec tiv e tr ia l, th e nu m be r of a va ila bl e da ta po in ts p er m ea su re u se d to c al cu la te e ff ec t s iz es c an d ev ia te . A BF T in di ca te s va lu es fo r th e A BF T in te rv en tio n gr ou p, C on tr ol fo r th e co nt ro l g ro up r es pe ct iv el y. A tt ri tio n ra te w as c al cu la te d as th e nu m be r of d at ap oi nt s at p os t- tr ea tm en t c om pa re d to b as el in e fo r th e SI Q (- JR ) s ca le a s th e pr im ar y ou tc om e. A dh er en ce w as a ss es se d as th e am ou nt o f c om pl et ed tr ea tm en t s es si on s. B as el in e se ve ri ty r ep re se nt s ou tc om e st at is tic s fo r th e to ta l s am pl e es tim at ed fr om g ro up -w is e ba se lin e sc or es . A BF T = A tt ac hm en t- Ba se d Fa m ily T he ra py ; A BF T- LG B = LG B se ns iti ve v ar ia nt o f A BF T ; A BF T- LG T BQ + = LG BT Q + se ns iti ve v ar ia nt o f A BF T ; B D I- II I = B ec k D ep re ss io n In ve nt or y- II ; C D I- 2 = C hi ld re n’ s D ep re ss io n In ve nt or y 2nd E di tio n; E U C = E nh an ce d U su al C ar e; F E- N ST = F am ily -E nh an ce d N on di re ct iv e Su pp or tiv e Tr ea tm en t; G RI D -H A M D = G RI D H am ilt on R at in g Sc al e fo r D ep re ss io n; L G B = le sb ia n, g ay a nd b is ex ua l; M D D = M aj or D ep re ss iv e D is or de r; M D E = M aj or D ep re ss iv e Ep is od e; N A = n ot a va ila bl e; S IQ -J R = Su ic id al Id ea tio n Q ue st io nn ai re -J un io r; S SI = S ca le fo r Su ic id al Id ea tio n; T A U = T re at m en t a s U su al . a S tu di es in cl ud ed in th e m et a- an al ys is . *c on fi de nc e in te rv al e xc lu di ng z er o in di ca tin g si gn if ic an ce o r p < .0 5. ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 8 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ The SIQ scale is a commonly applied self-administered questionnaire appropriate for adolescents around Grade 10 – 12, consisting of 30 items measuring mental distress and suicidal intend. Participants receive a list of “thoughts that people sometimes have” and are instructed to “indicate which of these thoughts [they] have had in the past month” on a scale from 0 “I never had this thought” to 6 “almost every day” (Reynolds, 1987). The SIQ-JR scale is an adapted version of the SIQ, consisting of a 15-item subset appropriate for adolescents around Grade 7 – 9 (Reynolds & Mazza, 1999). Scores consist of summed item responses, thus ranging from 0 to 180 for the SIQ and 0 to 90 for the SIQ-JR respectively, with higher scores indicating higher levels of mental distress and suicidal intend. Out of seven studies, four trials presented moderate to large within-group changes in SIQ(-JR) scores over time, g = 0.72 to 3.91 (G. M. Diamond et al., 2012; G. S. Diamond et al., 2002, 2019; van der Spek et al., 2024). When compared with controls at post-treat­ ment, a significant difference between treatment and comparator groups was present in one out of four RCTs, g = 0.83, 95% CI [0.30, 1.36], whereby the pooled effect size was large and reported to remain stable after 24 weeks (G. S. Diamond et al., 2010). Trials utilizing other comparators did not reveal significant group differences in SIQ(-JR) scores at post-treatment, and follow-up data was unavailable (G. S. Diamond et al., 2002, 2019; Waraan et al., 2021). A meta-analysis was performed on SIQ(-JR) scores. Four trials (n = 287) were included in this synthesis, the results of which are depicted in Figure 2. The pooled effect size was gpooled = 0.40 with a confidence interval including zero, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.93], indicating that SIQ(-JR) scores of participants in the ABFT conditions did not significantly differ from those in the associated control conditions at post-intervention. The prediction in­ terval spanning zero, 95% PI [-0.88, 1.69], suggests that ABFT will likely not benefit some patients in future trials with similar conditions based on current evidence. Variation between effect sizes attributed to study heterogeneity was moderate, with I 2 = 26% and Cochran’s Q being non-significant, p = 0.25. Visual inspection of the colour-enhanced funnel plot (Appendix C, Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-c) did not indicate asymmetry. A sensitivity analysis restricted to active-control trials (EUC, FE-NST, TAU) yielded similar results, gpooled = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.39], I 2 = 51%, and Cochran’s Q being non-significant, p = 0.13. Subgroup analyses were not performed due to the low number of included studies (Cuijpers et al., 2021). Since all studies also measured the intervention's effect on depressive symptoms, performing a secondary meta-analysis on BDI(-II) scores was possible. The Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI) and its revised version, the BDI-II scale, are widely used 21-item self-report rating inventories measuring characteristic attitudes and symptoms of depression (Beck, 1961; Beck et al., 1996). Ratings per item range from 0 (not present) to 3 (strongly present) and scores are calculated by summing all item ratings, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depressive attitudes and symptoms. In this Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 9 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ meta-analysis of post-intervention BDI(-II) scores across trials, the pooled effect size was gpooled = 0.33 with a confidence interval including zero, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.83], indicating that BDI(-II) scores of participants in the ABFT condition did not significantly differ from those in the associated control conditions. The prediction interval includes zero, 95% PI [-0.83, 1.49]. Heterogeneity was moderate, with I 2 = 24% and Cochran’s Q non-sig­ nificant, p = 0.27. A sensitivity analysis restricted to active-control trials (EUC, FE-NST, TAU) yielded similar results, gpooled = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.88], I 2 = 2.8%, Cochran’s Q p = 0.36. Discussion This study is the first to systematically review the efficacy of Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT), a psychotherapeutic treatment for pediatric patients focussing on intra­ familial attachment dynamics, for treating youth who are suicidal. Out of 370 records, four randomized-controlled trials (n = 287) and three open trials (n = 45) measuring suicidality were identified. In the meta-analysis covering four RCTs, Attachment-Based Family Therapy was not superior in reducing suicidal ideation or depressive symptoms compared to investigated controls (waitlist, FE-NST, EUC, TAU), and these results re­ mained stable when restricting the analysis to active control interventions only. None­ theless, most studies (5 out of 7) reported significant reductions in suicidal ideation and depression within the ABFT treatment group over time. Overall, experimental evidence is limited, with few available trials, small sample sizes, limited follow-up data, high sample heterogeneity, attrition rates, and risk of bias. Figure 2 Forest Plot on the Effect of ABFT Versus Control Treatments for Reducing SIQ(-JR) Scores Note. Effect sizes for SIQ(-JR) scores calculated between groups at post-treatment as Hartung-Knapp corrected Hedges’ g values. EUC, Enhanced Usual Care; FE-NST, Family-Enhanced Nondirective Supportive Therapy; TAU, Treatment as Usual. ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 10 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Currently, only four controlled trials including 287 participants exist, which might be insufficient to robustly establish or rule out superiority in a comparison with anticipated small effect sizes. Follow-up data was only available for one out of four RCTs, limiting the interpretability of clinical effects and their sustainability over time (G. S. Diamond et al., 2010). A priori defined recruitment targets were only met in one trial, indicating that most studies were underpowered (G. S. Diamond et al., 2019). Loss-to-follow-up was heterogeneous, with one study exhibiting a pre-post loss rate of ~80% for the primary outcome (Waraan et al., 2021). Attrition rates in the other randomized-controlled trials were moderate (3%–18%) and in line with estimates from other psychotherapy trials for depression in children and youth (Cooper & Conklin, 2015; Wright et al., 2021). SIQ(-JR) and BDI(-II) scales were used in most trials to assess suicidality and depressive symptoms, introducing some risk of instrument bias. Additionally, the SIQ(-JR) scale has recently been criticized for its insufficient psychometric properties (Courtney et al., 2024). Emerging evidence further suggests that severity of suicidal ideation strongly fluctuates short-term, for which multiple assessments might be necessary to measure state suicidality reliably (Czyz et al., 2019; Kleiman et al., 2017). There was also consid­ erable design heterogeneity between trials. Two studies in the meta-analysis used the 12-week ABFT protocol, while others applied the treatment for 16 weeks. Comparator treatments differed strongly, with trials using waitlist control, (enhanced) Treatment as Usual (EUC, TAU), or Family-enhanced Nondirective Supportive Therapy (FE-NST), which interestingly has been found to be effective for adult depression (Cuijpers et al., 2012). Actual type of treatment delivered was not assessed and adequately described in EUC and TAU trials, which might contribute to unexplained heterogeneity (Burns, 2009; Witt et al., 2018). Further so, three out of four included RCTs were conducted by researchers associated with the treatment development group. Primary allegiance of care providing professionals was only reported in one RCT, potentially introducing allegiance bias. Unfortunately, extending the meta-analysis through subgroup analyses for hetero­ geneity factors was not feasible due to the limited number of included trials and lack of Individual Participant Data. As a result, it was not possible to assess the respective impact of these sources of bias on the potential underestimation or overestimation of the comparative effect. Narrative reviews of previous trials suggested that Attachment-Based Family Therapy might be more effective in reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in youth than the current standard of care, which was not confirmed by this meta-analysis (G. S. Diamond et al., 2016, 2021; Ewing et al., 2015). Although restrained in validity due to the described limitations, these findings are in line with systematic reviews on the effect of other family-based interventions on depressive symptoms and a large meta-analysis on the effect of all-type treatments (e.g., medication, psychotherapy, combined) on several measures of suicidality (e.g., ideation, (non-)suicidal self-injury, death) in adolescents, which neither found significant treatment effects, regardless of outcome measure and Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 11 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ intervention type (Harris et al., 2022; van Aswegen et al., 2023; Waraan et al., 2023). Simi­ lar patterns can be observed with treatments for youth depression, which generally tend to yield lower effects than interventions for adults, and to which a substantial amount of patients do not respond within time (Cuijpers et al., 2020, 2023). For preventative approaches, data availability is currently strongly limited, and individual reports suggest that universal approaches might even lead to adverse effects on at-risk youth (Breedvelt et al., 2018; Montero-Marin et al., 2022). In contrast to these results, it should be noted that one other meta-analysis did identify a small positive effect of various family-based interventions on youth suicidal ideation, which upon closer inspection appears to be due to a discrepancy in data extraction for one specific trial (Waraan et al., 2023). As retrieving underlying data from this meta-analysis was not possible, we verified our ex­ tracted data with the author team of the trial in question to ensure correctness. Overall, effectiveness of current treatment options for youth suicidality is strongly limited and a major concern in pediatric healthcare. Considering the high burden of disease implicated by continued suicidal ideation, attempts, and completed suicide in youth, developing more effective treatments is im­ perative. Previous discussions of this challenge suggested that integrating insights on the dynamics of youth, characterized by strong psychological, biological, and social vo­ litions, might improve efficacy (Harris et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2018). While Attach­ ment-Based Family Therapy was, in contrast to more commonly applied psychological interventions (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy), devel­ oped explicitly for a pediatric population, it being non-superior to compared alternative treatments raises the question if other factors, such as patient baseline characteristics or therapeutic modalities, might influence treatment efficacy. Recent investigations on moderating factors in previous ABFT trials suggest, that patients with higher baseline levels of parent-teen conflict and underserved family backgrounds particularly benefit from treatment, and that more change in family cohesion during the intervention period was related to better treatment outcomes (Ibrahim et al., 2022; Zisk et al., 2019). Target­ ing Attachment-Based Family Therapy at high-yield subgroups, e.g., LGBTQI+ youth with non-accepting parents, could thus be beneficial (G. M. Diamond et al., 2022; Russon et al., 2023). Another area of improvement could be to intensify treatment components contributing to family cohesion, and disrupt negative feedback dynamics early on by e.g. implementing supervised exposure exercises to reduce patients’ fear of the caregiver’s emotional rejection (Bosmans et al., 2022). Other reviews pointed out that participants with higher baseline levels of depression, non-suicidal self-injury, perceived burdensome­ ness, and anxiety profited less from the treatment (Abbott et al., 2019; Herres et al., 2021). This might indicate that other interventions could have suited these patients better, or that sequential or multimodal approaches addressing their comorbidities and family dy­ namics simultaneously might have had better effects, e.g., combining Attachment-Based Family Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for patients with anxiety (Herres ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 12 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ et al., 2023). Considering given evidence for moderating factors, it is thus conceivable that ABFT might potentially lead to better treatment outcomes compared to the current standard of care when applied to patients whose condition is strongly linked to dynamics of intrafamilial relations, and whose comorbid disorders are concurrently addressed – that is, when the right patient receives the right treatment at the right time. Given the limitations of current evidence on the efficacy of Attachment-Based Family Therapy for treating youth who are suicidal, future research should focus on delivering high-quality evidence with more adequately powered samples, longer follow-up times, and more consistent and rigorous measurements. At the time of review, two adequately powered randomized-controlled clinical trials evaluating its performance and cost-effec­ tiveness were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Bockting et al., 2023; Pachankis et al., 2023). Additionally, with the weight of evidence suggesting that ABFT yields varying degrees of benefit for different patient groups – on average not exceeding the effective­ ness of alternative interventions such as TAU or FE-NST – a better understanding of underlying active ingredients and treatment-induced mechanisms of change might be helpful to dismantle contexts and conditions under which specific treatment components lead to better treatment outcomes (Cuijpers et al., 2019; Hofmann & Hayes, 2019). Pre­ viously, limited evidence for the role of therapeutic alliance as a common factor, and guided emotional processing, improved parenting, and reattachment as treatment-specif­ ic factors was found (G. S. Diamond et al., 2021). Future research could further focus on disentangling these specific factors from common factors also activated in alternative treatments such as TAU or FE-NST, understanding the underlying processes of change involved, identifying therapeutic components that activate these changes in a cost-effi­ cient manner, and providing clinicians with informed guidelines on implementing these components within a process-based therapy framework (Hofmann & Hayes, 2019; Rief et al., 2024). Finally, a key challenge is to establish predictive factors for when individual treat­ ment components of Attachment-Based Family Therapy might be feasible for a patient. While tailoring therapy plans and manualized treatments to the needs of individual patients and their presenting condition is common practice among clinicians, the appli­ cation of prediction and personalization models in research remains scarce (Meehan et al., 2022). Meanwhile, research indicates that such personalized medicine approaches could result in substantial benefits for patients, and it might therefore be valuable to investigate further ‘what works for whom’ when it comes to dynamicity-embracing treatments for suicidal youth (Deisenhofer et al., 2024; DeRubeis et al., 2014; Robinson et al., 2018). Ultimately, prioritizing investment into larger cohort studies and analyses of Individual Patient Data to develop and improve targeted preventative approaches in adolescence is crucial, as this special developmental stage provides a unique window of opportunity to stimulate long-lasting positive life trajectories (Breedvelt et al., 2018, 2024; Dahl et al., 2018). Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 13 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Funding: CB is funded by the Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The funding source was not involved in any processes or decisions related to this study. Acknowledgments: The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report. Competing Interests: GB is head and founder of the KU Leuven Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) training centre. All other authors report no conflict of interest. Preregistration: This systematic review was preregistered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42021271731. Reporting Guidelines: This systematic-review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Rob-2 framework was applied to assess the risk of bias in randomized-controlled trials. Author Contributions: CB is the guarantor. All authors contributed to the development of the research question and review design. PS performed the search, review, data extraction, analysis, and drafted the manuscript. MB provided expertise on systematic reviews, contributed to the review of articles, and verified extracted data. JB provided expertise on meta-analyses, verified extracted data and analysis, and contributed to the manuscript. NS and GB provided expertise on the intervention. All authors contributed by reading, providing feedback, and approving the final manuscript. Social Media Accounts: @poschfeld, @JosefienUMH, @clbockting, @mebrouwer Abbreviations:   ABFT – Attachment-Based Family Therapy CBT – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy DBT – Dialectical Behavior Therapy EUC – Enhanced Usual Care FE-NST – Family-Enhanced Nondirective Supportive Therapy TAU – Treatment as Usual Data Availability: All data and calculation scripts for this study are publicly available (see Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-b). Supplementary Materials The Supplementary Materials contain the following items: • The preregistration for the study (Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-a). • All collected summary statistics per study, analysis scripts, and a list of all articles screened (Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-b) • Online appendices: Additional information on the meta-analysis, namely detailed risk-of-bias scores per study and category, weighted overall risk-of-bias scores, and a color-enhanced funnel ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 14 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://x.com/poschfeld https://x.com/JosefienUMH https://x.com/clbockting https://x.com/mebrouwer https://www.psychopen.eu/ plot on the distribution of effect sizes of included studies [Supplements 1] (Schulte-Frankenfeld et al., 2024S-c). Index of Supplementary Materials Schulte-Frankenfeld, P. M., Breedvelt, J. J. F., Brouwer, M. E., van der Spek, N., Bosmans, G., & Bockting, C. L. (2024S-a). The effectiveness of attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis [Preregistration]. PROSPERO. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021271731 Schulte-Frankenfeld, P. M., Breedvelt, J. J. F., Brouwer, M. E., van der Spek, N., Bosmans, G., & Bockting, C. L. (2024S-b). Attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis [Summary statistics, analysis scripts, list of screened articles]. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2SWE8 Schulte-Frankenfeld, P. M., Breedvelt, J. J. F., Brouwer, M. E., van der Spek, N., Bosmans, G., & Bockting, C. L. (2024S-c). Supplementary materials to "Effectiveness of attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [Online appendices]. PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15566 References Abbott, C. H., Zisk, A., Bounoua, N., Diamond, G. S., & Kobak, R. (2019). Predicting patterns of treatment response and outcome for adolescents who are suicidal and depressed. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(9), 897–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.12.013 Bachmann, S. (2018). Epidemiology of suicide and the psychiatric perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), Article 1425. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071425 Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019). How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 22(4), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 Beck, A. T. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), Article 561. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory–II [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000 Bockting, C., van der Spek, N., & Bosmans, G. (2023). (Cost)-effectiveness of ABFT for suicidal youth (REPAIR). ClinicalTrials.Gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05965622 Bosmans, G., van Vlierberghe, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Kobak, R., Hermans, D., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2022). A learning theory approach to attachment theory: Exploring clinical applications. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 25(3), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-021-00377-x Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 15 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021271731 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2SWE8 https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.12.013 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071425 https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05965622 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-021-00377-x https://www.psychopen.eu/ Breedvelt, J. J. F., Kandola, A., Kousoulis, A. A., Brouwer, M. E., Karyotaki, E., Bockting, C. L. H., & Cuijpers, P. (2018). What are the effects of preventative interventions on major depressive disorder (MDD) in young adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Affective Disorders, 239, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.010 Breedvelt, J. J. F., Karyotaki, E., Warren, F. C., Brouwer, M. E., Jermann, F., Hollandare, F., Klein, N., de Jonge, M., Klein, D. N., Farb, N., Segal, Z., Biesheuvel Leliefeld, K. E. M., Jarrett, R., Vittengl, J., Thase, M., Ma, H., Kuyken, W., Shallcross, A. J., Van Heeringen, C., . . . Bockting, C. L. (2024). An individual participant data meta-analysis of psychological interventions for preventing depression relapse. Nature Mental Health, 2, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00178-x Burns, T. (2009). End of the road for treatment-as-usual studies? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.108.062968 Busby, D. R., Hatkevich, C., McGuire, T. C., & King, C. A. (2020). Evidence-based interventions for youth suicide risk. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-1129-6 California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. (2020). Attachment-Based Family Therapy. https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/attachment-based-family-therapy/ Carballo, J. J., Llorente, C., Kehrmann, L., Flamarique, I., Zuddas, A., Purper-Ouakil, D., Hoekstra, P. J., Coghill, D., Schulze, U. M. E., Dittmann, R. W., Buitelaar, J. K., Castro-Fornieles, J., Lievesley, K., Santosh, P., Arango, C., & the STOP Consortium. (2020). Psychosocial risk factors for suicidality in children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(6), 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-01270-9 Castelpietra, G., Knudsen, A. K. S., Agardh, E. E., Armocida, B., Beghi, M., Iburg, K. M., Logroscino, G., Ma, R., Starace, F., Steel, N., Addolorato, G., Andrei, C. L., Andrei, T., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Banach, M., Bärnighausen, T. W., Barone-Adesi, F., Bhagavathula, A. S., Carvalho, F., . . . Monasta, L. (2022). The burden of mental disorders, substance use disorders and self-harm among young people in Europe, 1990–2019: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 16, Article 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100341 Chiang, A., Paynter, J., Edlin, R., & Exeter, D. J. (2021). Suicide preceded by health services contact – A whole-of-population study in New Zealand 2013-2015. PLoS One, 16(12), Article e0261163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261163 Chu, C., Buchman-Schmitt, J. M., Stanley, I. H., Hom, M. A., Tucker, R. P., Hagan, C. R., Rogers, M. L., Podlogar, M. C., Chiurliza, B., Ringer, F. B., Michaels, M. S., Patros, C. H. G., & Joiner, T. E. (2017). The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade of cross-national research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1313–1345. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000123 ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 16 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.05.010 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00178-x https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.108.062968 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-1129-6 https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/attachment-based-family-therapy/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-01270-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100341 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261163 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000123 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Cooper, A. A., & Conklin, L. R. (2015). Dropout from individual psychotherapy for major depression: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.001 Courtney, D. B., Iseyas, N., Monga, S., Butcher, N. J., Krause, K., Besa, R., & Szatmari, P. (2024). Systematic review: The measurement properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire—Jr. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 63(9), 870–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.10.013 Cuijpers, P., Driessen, E., Hollon, S. D., van Oppen, P., Barth, J., & Andersson, G. (2012). The efficacy of non-directive supportive therapy for adult depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(4), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.003 Cuijpers, P., Griffin, J. W., & Furukawa, T. A. (2021). The lack of statistical power of subgroup analyses in meta-analyses: A cautionary note. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 30, Article e78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000664 Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Ciharova, M., Miguel, C., Noma, H., Stikkelbroek, Y., Weisz, J. R., & Furukawa, T. A. (2023). The effects of psychological treatments of depression in children and adolescents on response, reliable change, and deterioration: A systematic review and meta- analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(1), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01884-6 Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Eckshtain, D., Ng, M. Y., Corteselli, K. A., Noma, H., Quero, S., & Weisz, J. R. (2020). Psychotherapy for depression across different age groups: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(7), 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0164 Cuijpers, P., Reijnders, M., & Huibers, M. J. H. (2019). The role of common factors in psychotherapy outcomes. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424 Cuijpers, P., Turner, E. H., Koole, S. L., van Dijke, A., & Smit, F. (2014). What is the threshold for a clinically relevant effect? The case of major depressive disorders. Depression and Anxiety, 31(5), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22249 Czyz, E. K., Horwitz, A. G., Arango, A., & King, C. A. (2019). Short‐term change and prediction of suicidal ideation among adolescents: A daily diary study following psychiatric hospitalization. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 60(7), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12974 Dahl, R. E., Allen, N. B., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B. (2018). Importance of investing in adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554(7693), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25770 Deisenhofer, A.-K., Barkham, M., Beierl, E. T., Schwartz, B., Aafjes-van Doorn, K., Beevers, C. G., Berwian, I. M., Blackwell, S. E., Bockting, C. L., Brakemeier, E.-L., Brown, G., Buckman, J. E. J., Castonguay, L. G., Cusack, C. E., Dalgleish, T., de Jong, K., Delgadillo, J., DeRubeis, R. J., Driessen, E., . . . Cohen, Z. D. (2024). Implementing precision methods in personalizing Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 17 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000664 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01884-6 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0164 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424 https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22249 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12974 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25770 https://www.psychopen.eu/ psychological therapies: Barriers and possible ways forward. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 172, Article 104443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2023.104443 DeRubeis, R. J., Cohen, Z. D., Forand, N. R., Fournier, J. C., Gelfand, L. A., & Lorenzo-Luaces, L. (2014). The Personalized Advantage Index: Translating research on prediction into individualized treatment recommendations: A demonstration. PLoS One, 9(1), Article e83875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083875 Diamond, G. M., Boruchovitz‐Zamir, R., Nir‐Gotlieb, O., Gat, I., Bar‐Kalifa, E., Fitoussi, P., & Katz, S. (2022). Attachment‐based family therapy for sexual and gender minority young adults and their nonaccepting parents. Family Process, 61(2), 530–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12770 Diamond, G. M., Diamond, G. S., Levy, S., Closs, C., Ladipo, T., & Siqueland, L. (2012). Attachment- Based Family Therapy for suicidal lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents: A treatment development study and open trial with preliminary findings. Psychotherapy, 49(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026247 Diamond, G. S. (2022). Attachment-Based Family Therapy for youth at risk for suicide: The next evolution. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(10), S32–S33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.133 Diamond, G. S., Creed, T., Gillham, J., Gallop, R., & Hamilton, J. L. (2012). Sexual trauma history does not moderate treatment outcome in Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) for adolescents with suicide ideation. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028414 Diamond, G. S., Diamond, G. M., & Levy, S. A. (2014). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14296-000 Diamond, G. S., Diamond, G. M., & Levy, S. A. (2021). Attachment-based family therapy: Theory, clinical model, outcomes, and process research. Journal of Affective Disorders, 294(1), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.005 Diamond, G. S., Kobak, R. R., Krauthamer Ewing, E. S., Levy, S. A., Herres, J. L., Russon, J. M., & Gallop, R. J. (2019). A randomized controlled trial: Attachment-based family and nondirective supportive treatments for youth who are suicidal. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(7), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.10.006 Diamond, G. S., Reis, B. F., Diamond, G. M., Siqueland, L., & Isaacs, L. (2002). Attachment-Based Family Therapy for depressed adolescents: A treatment development study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(10), 1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200210000-00008 Diamond, G. S., Russon, J., & Levy, S. (2016). Attachment-Based Family Therapy: A review of the empirical support. Family Process, 55(3), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12241 Diamond, G. S., Wintersteen, M. B., Brown, G. K., Diamond, G. M., Gallop, R., Shelef, K., & Levy, S. (2010). Attachment-Based Family Therapy for adolescents with suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(2), 122– 131. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-201002000-00006 ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 18 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2023.104443 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083875 https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12770 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.133 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028414 https://doi.org/10.1037/14296-000 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200210000-00008 https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12241 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-201002000-00006 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Ewing, E. S. K., Diamond, G. S., & Levy, S. (2015). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed and suicidal adolescents: Theory, clinical model and empirical support. Attachment & Human Development, 17(2), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2015.1006384 Feder, M. M., & Diamond, G. M. (2016). Parent-therapist alliance and parent attachment-promoting behaviour in attachment-based family therapy for suicidal and depressed adolescents. Journal of Family Therapy, 38(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12078 Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Ridder, E. M., & Beautrais, A. L. (2005). Suicidal behaviour in adolescence and subsequent mental health outcomes in young adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 35(7), 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704004167 Fox, K. R., Huang, X., Guzmán, E. M., Funsch, K. M., Cha, C. B., Ribeiro, J. D., & Franklin, J. C. (2020). Interventions for suicide and self-injury: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across nearly 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1117–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000305 Franklin, J. C., Ribeiro, J. D., Fox, K. R., Bentley, K. H., Kleiman, E. M., Huang, X., Musacchio, K. M., Jaroszewski, A. C., Chang, B. P., & Nock, M. K. (2017). Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 187–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084 Franzoi, D., Bockting, C. L., Bennett, K. F., Odom, A., Lucassen, P. J., Pathania, A., Lee, A., Brouwer, M. E., Van De Schoot, R., Wiers, R. W., & Breedvelt, J. J. F. (2024). Which individual, social, and urban factors in early childhood predict psychopathology in later childhood, adolescence and young adulthood? A systematic review. SSM – Population Health, 25, Article 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101575 Frey, L. M., Hunt, Q. A., Russon, J. M., & Diamond, G. (2022). Review of family-based treatments from 2010 to 2019 for suicidal ideation and behavior. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(1), 154–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12568 Gunn, J. F., Goldstein, S. E., & Gager, C. T. (2018). A longitudinal examination of social connectedness and suicidal thoughts and behaviors among adolescents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 23(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12281 Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. Harris, L. M., Huang, X., Funsch, K. M., Fox, K. R., & Ribeiro, J. D. (2022). Efficacy of interventions for suicide and self-injury in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 12313. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16567-8 Herres, J., James, K. M., Bounoua, N., Krauthamer Ewing, E. S., Kobak, R., & Diamond, G. S. (2021). Anxiety-related difficulties in goal-directed behavior predict worse treatment outcome among adolescents treated for suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Psychotherapy, 58(4), 523– 532. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000391 Herres, J., Krauthamer Ewing, E. S., Levy, S., Creed, T. A., & Diamond, G. S. (2023). Combining attachment-based family therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy to improve outcomes for Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 19 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2015.1006384 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12078 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704004167 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000305 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101575 https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12568 https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12281 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16567-8 https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000391 https://www.psychopen.eu/ adolescents with anxiety. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, Article 1096291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1096291 Higgins, J., Li, T., & Deeks, J. (2023). Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.4; updated August 2023). Cochrane. Hofmann, S. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2019). The future of intervention science: Process-based therapy. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618772296 Holmes, E. A., Ghaderi, A., Harmer, C. J., Ramchandani, P. G., Cuijpers, P., Morrison, A. P., Roiser, J. P., Bockting, C. L. H., O’Connor, R. C., Shafran, R., Moulds, M. L., & Craske, M. G. (2018). The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow’s science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(3), 237–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30513-8 Ibrahim, M., Jin, B., Russon, J., Diamond, G. S., & Kobak, R. (2018). Predicting alliance for depressed and suicidal adolescents: The role of perceived attachment to mothers. Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 3(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23794925.2018.1423893 Ibrahim, M., King, A., Levy, S., Russon, J., & Diamond, G. (2022). Increased family cohesion mediates therapist adherence to the attachment task and depression outcomes in attachment- based family therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 52(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-022-09539-6 IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Rovers, M. M., & Goeman, J. J. (2016). Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 6(7), Article e010247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 Israel, P., & Diamond, G. S. (2013). Feasibility of Attachment-Based Family Therapy for depressed clinic-referred Norwegian adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104512455811 Jackman, K. B., Caceres, B. A., Kreuze, E. J., & Bockting, W. O. (2021). Suicidality among gender minority youth: Analysis of 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey data. Archives of Suicide Research, 25(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2019.1678539 King, C. A., & Merchant, C. R. (2008). Social and interpersonal factors relating to adolescent suicidality: A review of the literature. Archives of Suicide Research, 12(3), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811110802101203 Kleiman, E. M., Turner, B. J., Fedor, S., Beale, E. E., Huffman, J. C., & Nock, M. K. (2017). Examination of real-time fluctuations in suicidal ideation and its risk factors: Results from two ecological momentary assessment studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(6), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000273 Kothgassner, O. D., Robinson, K., Goreis, A., Ougrin, D., & Plener, P. L. (2020). Does treatment method matter? A meta-analysis of the past 20 years of research on therapeutic interventions for self-harm and suicidal ideation in adolescents. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 7(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-020-00123-9 ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 20 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1096291 https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618772296 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30513-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/23794925.2018.1423893 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-022-09539-6 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104512455811 https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2019.1678539 https://doi.org/10.1080/13811110802101203 https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000273 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-020-00123-9 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Liu, R. T., Walsh, R. F. L., Sheehan, A. E., Cheek, S. M., & Carter, S. M. (2020). Suicidal ideation and behavior among sexual minority and heterosexual youth: 1995–2017. Pediatrics, 145(3), Article e20192221. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2221 Lüdecke, D. (2019). esc: Effect Size Computation for Meta Analysis [R package] [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249218 McClelland, H., Evans, J. J., Nowland, R., Ferguson, E., & O’Connor, R. C. (2020). Loneliness as a predictor of suicidal ideation and behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274, 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.004 McGuinness, L. A. (2019). robvis: An R package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments [Computer software]. https://github.com/mcguinlu/robvis Meehan, A. J., Lewis, S. J., Fazel, S., Fusar-Poli, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Stahl, D., & Danese, A. (2022). Clinical prediction models in psychiatry: A systematic review of two decades of progress and challenges. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(6), 2700–2708. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01528-4 Montero-Marin, J., Allwood, M., Ball, S., Crane, C., De Wilde, K., Hinze, V., Jones, B., Lord, L., Nuthall, E., Raja, A., Taylor, L., Tudor, K., MYRIAD Team, Blakemore, S.-J., Byford, S., Dalgleish, T., Ford, T., Greenberg, M. T., Ukoumunne, O. C., … Kuyken, W. (2022). School-based mindfulness training in early adolescence: What works, for whom and how in the MYRIAD trial? Evidence-Based Mental Health, 25(3), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2022-300439 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2019). Depression in children and young people: Identification and management (NICE Guideline). Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), Article 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 Pachankis, J. E., Chiaramonte, D. M., & Diamond, G. M. (2023). Affirmative family and individual psychotherapy for sexual and gender minority adults and their nonaccepting parents. ClinicalTrials.Gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05766592 Reynolds, W. M. (1987). Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ). Psychological Assessment Resources. Reynolds, W. M., & Mazza, J. J. (1999). Assessment of suicidal ideation in inner-city children and young adolescents: Reliability and validity of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-JR. School Psychology Review, 28(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1999.12085945 Rief, W., Asmundson, G. J. G., Bryant, R. A., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., Holmes, E. A., McNally, R. J., Neufeld, C. B., Wilhelm, S., Jaroszewski, A. C., Berg, M., Haberkamp, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2024). The future of psychological treatments: The Marburg Declaration. Clinical Psychology Review, 110, Article 102417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102417 Robinson, J., Bailey, E., Witt, K., Stefanac, N., Milner, A., Currier, D., Pirkis, J., Condron, P., & Hetrick, S. (2018). What works in youth suicide prevention? A systematic review and meta- analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 4–5, 52–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.10.004 Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 21 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2221 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249218 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.004 https://github.com/mcguinlu/robvis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01528-4 https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2022-300439 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05766592 https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1999.12085945 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102417 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.10.004 https://www.psychopen.eu/ RStudio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R [Computer software]. RStudio, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/ Russon, J., Abbott, C. H., Jin, B., Rivers, A. S., Winston-Lindeboom, P., Kobak, R., & Diamond, G. S. (2023). Attachment-based family therapy versus nondirective supportive therapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and questioning adolescents with depression, and suicidal ideation: An exploratory study. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 53(6), 958–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12995 Russon, J., Morrissey, J., Dellinger, J., Jin, B., & Diamond, G. (2022). Implementing Attachment- Based Family Therapy for depressed and suicidal adolescents and young adults in LGBTQ+ Services: Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 43(6), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000821 Shpigel, M. S., Diamond, G. M., & Diamond, G. S. (2012). Changes in parenting behaviors, attachment, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation in attachment-based family therapy for depressive and suicidal adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(s1), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00295.x Sullivan, S. R., Spears, A. P., Mitchell, E. L., Walsh, S., Love, C., & Goodman, M. (2023). Family treatments for individuals at risk for suicide. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 44(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000828 Tarrier, N., Taylor, K., & Gooding, P. (2008). Cognitive-behavioral interventions to reduce suicide behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 32(1), 77–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445507304728 van Aert, R. C. M., & Jackson, D. (2019). A new justification of the Hartung‐Knapp method for random‐effects meta‐analysis based on weighted least squares regression. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1356 van Aswegen, T., Samartzi, E., Morris, L., van der Spek, N., de Vries, R., Seedat, S., & van Straten, A. (2023). Effectiveness of family‐based therapy for depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 58(6), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12926 van der Spek, N., Dekker, W., Peen, J., Santens, T., Cuijpers, P., Bosmans, G., & Dekker, J. (2024). Attachment-Based Family Therapy for adolescents and young adults with suicide ideation and depression: An open trial. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 45(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000916 Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697 Walby, F. A., Myhre, M. Ø., & Kildahl, A. T. (2018). Contact with mental health services prior to suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatric Services, 69(7), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700475 Waraan, L., Rognli, E. W., Czajkowski, N. O., Mehlum, L., & Aalberg, M. (2021). Efficacy of attachment-based family therapy compared to treatment as usual for suicidal ideation in ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis 22 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 http://www.rstudio.com/ https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12995 https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000821 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00295.x https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000828 https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445507304728 https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1356 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12926 https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000916 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697 https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700475 https://www.psychopen.eu/ adolescents with MDD. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26(2), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104520980776 Waraan, L., Siqveland, J., Hanssen-Bauer, K., Czjakowski, N. O., Axelsdóttir, B., Mehlum, L., & Aalberg, M. (2023). Family therapy for adolescents with depression and suicidal ideation: A systematic review and meta–analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(2), 831–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045221125005 Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., . . . Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), Article 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 Witt, K., De Moraes, D. P., Salisbury, T. T., Arensman, E., Gunnell, D., Hazell, P., Townsend, E., van Heeringen, K., & Hawton, K. (2018). Treatment as usual (TAU) as a control condition in trials of cognitive behavioural-based psychotherapy for self-harm: Impact of content and quality on outcomes in a systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 235, 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.025 World Health Organization. (2020). Global Health Estimates 2020: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000-2019 [Data set]. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe- leading-causes-of-death World Health Organization. (2021). Suicide worldwide in 2019: Global health estimates. Wright, I., Mughal, F., Bowers, G., & Meiser-Stedman, R. (2021). Dropout from randomised controlled trials of psychological treatments for depression in children and youth: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281, 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.039 Zeraatkar, D., Han, M., Ge, L., Hanna, S., & Guyatt, G. (2020). A comparison of the Hartung-Knapp- Sidik-Jonkman method for meta-analysis with conventional frequentist methods: A systematic review of simulation and empirical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Abstracts of the 26th Cochrane Colloquium, Santiago, Chile. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201901 Zisk, A., Abbott, C. H., Bounoua, N., Diamond, G. S., & Kobak, R. (2019). Parent–teen communication predicts treatment benefit for depressed and suicidal adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(12), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000457 Clinical Psychology in Europe (CPE) is the official journal of the European Association of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Treatment (EACLIPT). PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany. Schulte-Frankenfeld, Breedvelt, Brouwer et al. 23 Clinical Psychology in Europe 2024, Vol. 6(4), Article e13717 https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13717 https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104520980776 https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045221125005 https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.025 https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.039 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201901 https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000457 https://www.psychopen.eu/ ABFT for Suicidal Youth: Review and Meta-Analysis (Introduction) Method Search Strategy and Selection Criteria Data Extraction and Statistical Analysis Results Study Selection Study Characteristics Effect Sizes and Meta-Analyses Discussion (Additional Information) Funding Acknowledgments Competing Interests Preregistration Reporting Guidelines Author Contributions Social Media Accounts Abbreviations Data Availability Supplementary Materials References