Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Motivational Interviewing to Reduce Substance Use in Adolescents with Psychiatric Comorbidity.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Motivational Interviewing to Reduce Substance Use in Adolescents with Psychiatric Comorbidity.
Author Brown RA., Abrantes AM., Minami H., Prince MA., Bloom EL., Apodaca TR., Strong DR., Picotte DM., Monti PM., MacPherson L., Matsko SV., Hunt JI.
Country Butler Hospital, Providence, RI; Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI. Electronic address: brown2@utexas.edu.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26362000

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU
  • 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
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
17
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 151
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 15.85
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No active treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance-related problems or symptoms scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.0
  • 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: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 69 70
Proportion 0.23 0.34
Outcome: pct abstinent for nos      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 69 70
Proportion 0.22 0.09
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 69 70
Proportion 0.33 0.45
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 3.7 2.35
SD 5.55 3.49


3 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 1.1 1.9
SD nr nr
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 14.9 14.6
SD 10.1 10.8


3 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 9 9.2
SD nr nr
Outcome: nos use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 15.9 15.7
SD 9.73 19.16


3 months

N Analyzed 79 72
Mean 10.5 10.9
SD nr nr


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
  • 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 Yes >=80% retention for 9 mo (76% at 12 mo)
  • 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. Low RAs blind
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High 23% withdrew
  • 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.