Trial Outcomes & Findings for Agile Development of a Digital Exposure Treatment for Youth With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain (NCT NCT05079984)
NCT ID: NCT05079984
Last Updated: 2026-07-22
Results Overview
Participant-rated acceptability measured on 5-point Likert scale. Range 0-4 (higher scores indicate more acceptable). Questionnaire will be administered to youth with chronic pain and their parents.
COMPLETED
NA
108 participants
One day
2026-07-22
Participant Flow
For Aim 1 (one time study visit), youth of chronic pain and caregivers of youth with chronic pain were recruited. However, these were not exclusively dyads. For Aim 2 (intervention), youth-caregiver dyads were recruited and enrolled.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
User Centered Development-Youth
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aim 1
STARTED
|
15
|
17
|
0
|
0
|
|
Aim 1
COMPLETED
|
15
|
17
|
0
|
0
|
|
Aim 1
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
STARTED
|
0
|
0
|
38
|
38
|
|
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
Completed Baseline Assessment
|
0
|
0
|
38
|
38
|
|
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
Completed the Intervention
|
0
|
0
|
31
|
35
|
|
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
22
|
33
|
|
Aim 2(10-week Intervention+3-month FUP)
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
16
|
5
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Agile Development of a Digital Exposure Treatment for Youth With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
User Centered Development-Youth
n=15 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=17 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
Total
n=108 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
15 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
53 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
17 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
55 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
13 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
14 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
29 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
31 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
87 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
21 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
11 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
7 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
14 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
69 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
4 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
19 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
2 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
13 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
35 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
35 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
96 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
15 Participants
n=9 Participants
|
17 Participants
n=27 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=267 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=265 Participants
|
108 Participants
n=568 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: One dayPopulation: Population for Aim 2 includes participants who received the intervention.
Participant-rated acceptability measured on 5-point Likert scale. Range 0-4 (higher scores indicate more acceptable). Questionnaire will be administered to youth with chronic pain and their parents.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=15 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=17 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Acceptability of Treatment Content - Likert Scale (Aim 1)
|
3.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.69
|
3.8 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.23
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 10 weeks (assessed at discharge)Population: Aim 2 youth participants who completed the intervention
Treatment satisfaction at the end of treatment will be evaluated by examining mean satisfaction scores on an adapted version of the Pain Service Satisfaction Test (PSST, McCracken et al., 1997). The PSST consists of 23 items rated on a 5-point Likert Scale (0 = not at all satisfied to 4 = very satisfied) and assesses the patient and parent's experience of the intervention. Scores range from 0-92. A score greater than/equal to 40 of 60 (satisfied to very satisfied) will indicate high levels of satisfaction with the intervention content. Caregivers were not assessed for this Outcome Measure.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=31 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Satisfaction With the Intervention (Aim 2)
|
36.13 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.46
|
—
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 10 weeks (Completed at discharge)As a measure of treatment adherence, we will calculate the percentage of participants who drop out or withdraw from the intervention prior to completion of the intervention.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=38 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Dropped Out of Intervention (Aim 2)
|
7 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Assessed seven days after starting the intervention (7 days post-baseline)To assess expectations for treatment effectiveness, participants completed the Credibility/Effectiveness Questionnaire (CEQ; Borkovec \& Nau, 1972) after engaging with iGET Living for one week. The CEQ consists of six items rated on a 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) Likert scale and assesses expectations related to the effects of the intervention across two subscales: Credibility (e.g., "How confident would you be recommending iGET Living to a friend with the same problems?") and Expectancy (e.g., "By the end of iGET Living, how much do you think your functioning will improve?"). Credibility is calculated by summing items 1-3 and Expectancy by summing items 4-6. Possible range of scores for each subscale is 0-30, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived credibility and expectancy.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=36 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
n=36 Participants
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Expectations for Treatment (Aim 2)
Credibility
|
19.71 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.34
|
22.42 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.63
|
|
Expectations for Treatment (Aim 2)
Expectancy
|
17.96 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.83
|
19.84 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.59
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Aim 2 participants who received the intervention with data at the respective time point. Caregivers were not assessed for this Outcome Measure.
Functional disability will be assessed using the Functional Disability Inventory (FDI, Walker \& Greene, 1991), a 15-item self-report measure of perceived difficulty in performing activities in school, home, physical, and social contexts. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no trouble) to 4 (impossible). Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score (range 0-60), with higher scores indicating greater disability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
28.81 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.77
|
—
|
|
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
22.81 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.65
|
—
|
|
Functional Disability (Aim 2)
3-Month Follow-Up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
23.09 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.61
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants at baseline.
Fear of Pain Questionnaire, Child Report, Short Form (FOPQ-C-SF, Heathcote et al., 2020) is a 10-item self-report measure that assesses pain-related fear and avoidance of activities. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Scores from all the Items are summed to create a total score ranging from 0 - 40. Higher scores indicate higher levels of pain-related fear and avoidance (worst outcome).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
24.91 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.80
|
—
|
|
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
19.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.63
|
—
|
|
Child Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
18.68 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.52
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed Baseline.
The Parent Fear of Pain Questionnaire (PFOPQ, Simons et al., 2015) assesses parent's fear associated with their child's pain experiences. The PFOPQ contains 23 items assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "strongly disagree" to 4 "strongly agree"). Items are summed to create a total score (0-92), with higher scores indicated greater parent fear associated with their child's pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
37.34 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.79
|
—
|
|
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
28.97 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.80
|
—
|
|
Parental Fear of Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
29.0 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.90
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of patients who completed baseline
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale -Child Version (PCS-C, Crombez et al., 2003) assesses negative cognitions associated with pain. The PCS-C is comprised of 13-items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= "not at all true" to 4 "very true"). A total score (0-52) is obtained by summing all items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of catastrophic thinking.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
30.72 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.06
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
25.26 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.59
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
23.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.71
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents number of participants who completed baseline.
Pain Catastrophizing Scale-Parent Version (PCS-P, Goubert et al., 2006) assesses parents' negative cognitions associated with their child's pain. It is comprised of 13 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "not true at all" to 4 = "very true"). A total score (0-52) is derived by summing items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of catastrophic thinking.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
24.51 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.98
|
—
|
|
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
19.15 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.50
|
—
|
|
Parent Pain Catastrophizing (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
20.36 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.04
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.
Child report on the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Adolescents-short form (CPAQ-A8, Gauntlett-Gilbert et al., 2018) will be used to assess pain acceptance in the child. The CPAQ-A8 is an 8-item measure consisting of two subscales: Activity Engagement (4 items) and Pain Willingness (4 items). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never True) to 4 (Always True) and yield a total score for each subscale ranging from 0-16. Higher scores indicate greater Activity Engagement and greater Pain Willingness (positive outcome) .
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7) Activity Engagement Subscale
|
7.44 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.12
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline) Activity Engagement Subscale
|
9.16 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.33
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge) Activity Engagement Subscale
|
10.27 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.31
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7) Pain Willingness Subscale
|
10.97 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.85
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline) Pain Willingness Subscale
|
9.54 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.94
|
—
|
|
Child Pain Acceptance (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge) Pain Willingness Subscale
|
9.09 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.30
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.
The Parent Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PPFQ-10, Timmers et al., 2019) is a 10-item parent self-report questionnaire assessing a parent's ability to accept their own distress and respond adaptively and flexibly to their child's pain. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0= " never true" to 4 = "always true") and are summed to create a total score, ranging from 0 - 40. Higher scores indicate greater parent psychological flexibility (positive outcome).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
33.47 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.76
|
—
|
|
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
35.21 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.19
|
—
|
|
Parent Psychological Flexibility (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
37.32 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.77
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 7), Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline), and 3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)Population: Overall Number of Participants Analyzed represents the number of participants who completed baseline.
Adult Responses to Children's Symptoms (ARCS, Claar et al., 2010) assesses parents' behavioral responses to children's pain behaviors. The Protect subscale (13 items) will be utilized in this study. The Protect scale refers to protective parental behavior, such as giving the child special attention and limiting the child's normal activities and responsibilities. All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = "never" to 4 "always"), and are averaged to create a total score ranging from 0-4. Higher scores indicating greater use of protective behavioral responses to their child's pain (worst outcome).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
n=38 Participants
For Aim 2, adolescents with chronic pain will be enrolled in a single-arm feasibility trial examining acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel, digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment.
|
User Centered Development-Caregivers
For Aim 1, participants engaged with the prototypes of the intervention and provided feedback.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
Baseline (Day 7)
|
1.48 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
|
—
|
|
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
Discharge (10 weeks post-baseline)
|
1.17 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
|
—
|
|
Parent Responses to Childs Pain (Aim 2)
3-month follow-up (12 weeks post-discharge)
|
1.20 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.53
|
—
|
Adverse Events
User Centered Development-Youth
User Centered Development-Caregivers
Graded Exposure Intervention-Youth
Graded Exposure Intervention-Caregivers
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place