Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Brief motivational interviewing for teens at risk of substance use consequences: a randomized pilot study in a primary care clinic.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Brief motivational interviewing for teens at risk of substance use consequences: a randomized pilot study in a primary care clinic.
Author D'Amico EJ., Miles JN., Stern SA., Meredith LS.
Country RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA. elizabeth_d'amico@rand.org
Year 2008
Numbers Pubmed ID: 18037603

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
The impact of a family empowerment intervention on juvenile offender heavy drinking: a latent growth model analysis. Dembo R., Wothke W., Livingston S., Schmeidler J. Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, Tampa 33620, USA. 2002
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 TAU
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 MI
  • 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) 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 64
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other ... Cigarettes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Risks      Population: alcohol
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 26 38
SE 95% CI low 95% CI high effect size P-Value
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure TAU vs. MI


3 months

N Analyzed 26 38 0.63
-2.07
0.47
-0.8
0.21
SE 95% CI low 95% CI high effect size P-Value
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure TAU vs. MI


3 months

N Analyzed 26 38 0.35
-0.93
0.5
-0.22
0.542
Outcome: Risks      Population: cannabis
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 26 38
SE 95% CI low 95% CI high effect size P-Value
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure TAU vs. MI


3 months

N Analyzed 26 38 0.56
-1.97
0.29
-0.84
0.142


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No They varied the allocation ratio mid-trial, but that in and of itself is not a problem. But, they didn't analyze the two randomization periods separately, so I dinged them under ITT.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Unsure Vague text on page 58.
  • 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 No
  • 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 No info about randomization per se. They varied the allocation ratio mid-trial, but that in and of itself is not a problem. But, they didn't analyze the two randomization periods separately, so I dinged them under ITT.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Unclear No info
  • 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-reported outcomes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High
  • 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.