Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Randomized controlled trial of motivational enhancement therapy with nontreatment-seeking adolescent cannabis users: a further test of the teen marijuana check-up.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Randomized controlled trial of motivational enhancement therapy with nontreatment-seeking adolescent cannabis users: a further test of the teen marijuana check-up.
Author Walker DD., Stephens R., Roffman R., Demarce J., Lozano B., Towe S., Berg B.
Country School of Social Work, University of Washington, Innovative Programs Research Group, 909 NE 43rd Street, Suite 304, Seattle, WA 98105-6020, USA. ddwalker@u.washington.edu
Year 2011
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21688877

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Educ Educational Feedback Control
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 TAU Delayed FC (Feedback Control)
  • 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
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 14
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
19
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 310
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance-related problems or symptoms scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance-related problems or symptoms scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.24
  • 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: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI Educ TAU


3 months

Mean 31.8 34.53 37.46
SD 19.67 19.78 18.99
N Analyzed 101 100 104


12 months

Mean 33.71 34.24 nr
SD 22.27 21.08 nr
N Analyzed 94 92 nr
Outcome: cannabis dep sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI Educ TAU


0 months

Mean 3.37 3.45 nr
SD 2.07 2.09 nr
N Analyzed 103 102 105


3 months

Mean 2.7 3.02 3.77
SD 2.01 2 1.95
N Analyzed 101 100 104


12 months

Mean 2.74 2.92 nr
SD 1.99 2.11 nr
N Analyzed 94 92 nr
Outcome: cannabis abuse sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI Educ TAU


0 months

Mean 1.38 1.59 nr
SD 1.16 1.11 nr
N Analyzed 103 102 105


3 months

Mean 1.05 1.3 1.52
SD 1.04 1.04 1.07
N Analyzed 101 100 104


12 months

Mean 1.1 1.14 nr
SD 0.95 1.03 nr
N Analyzed 94 92 nr
Outcome: Risks      Population: cannabis
Time Point Measure MI Educ TAU


0 months

Mean 18.47 19.13 nr
SD 13.47 12.31 nr
N Analyzed 103 102 105


3 months

Mean 14.68 14.24 21.58
SD 10.39 10.18 12.95
N Analyzed 101 100 104


12 months

Mean 13.08 14.14 nr
SD 10.35 10.32 nr
N Analyzed 94 92
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI Educ TAU


0 months

Mean 19.74 19.74 19.09
SD 6.71 7.22 7.28
N Analyzed 103 102 105


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Adjusted Gender
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes None
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups Yes 0-1% noncompliance
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Yes Same
  • 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 Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Low research office
  • 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. High Self, by computer
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low <10%
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
Guideline Used Overall Rating