Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Sequenced versus coordinated treatment for adolescents with comorbid depressive and substance use disorders.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Evidence map
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Sequenced versus coordinated treatment for adolescents with comorbid depressive and substance use disorders.
Author Rohde P., Waldron HB., Turner CW., Brody J., Jorgensen J.
Country Oregon Research Institute.
Year 2014
Numbers Pubmed ID: 24491069

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Depression Change Profiles in Adolescents Treated for Comorbid Depression/Substance Abuse and Profile Membership Predictors. Rohde P., Turner CW., Waldron HB., Brody JL., Jorgensen J. a Oregon Research Institute. -- Not Found --
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT_Fam_a FFT followed by CWD (FFT/CWD)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 CBT_Fam_b CWD followed by FFT (CWD/FFT)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 CBT_Fam_c combined FFT and CWD (Coordinated Treatment; CT)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper originate from a primary study of interest? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 170
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: nos use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam_a CBT_Fam_b CBT_Fam_c


0 weeks

Mean 6.81 7.78 7.47
SD 2.27 2.34 2.24
N Analyzed 61 56 53


10 weeks

Mean 4.54 6.51 5.51
SD 2.98 3.57 2.99
N Analyzed 49 42 43


20 weeks

Mean 3.99 6.24 6.22
SD 3.11 3.2 3.12
N Analyzed 48 42 44


46 weeks

Mean 4.68 6.24 6.82
SD 2.56 3.19 2.92
N Analyzed 37 41 40


72 weeks

Mean 4.95 5.85 7.13
SD 3.22 3.93 2.91
N Analyzed 45 47 48


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Yes Small difference in age (ignored here)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No Data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 18% dropout
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.