Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A randomized controlled trial of a brief motivational enhancement for non-treatment-seeking adolescent cannabis users.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title A randomized controlled trial of a brief motivational enhancement for non-treatment-seeking adolescent cannabis users.
Author de Gee EA., Verdurmen JE., Bransen E., de Jonge JM., Schippers GM.
Country Trimbos Institute, Postbus 725, 3500 AS Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: agee@trimbos.nl.
Year 2014
Numbers Pubmed ID: 24969735

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI Weed-Check
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Educ Informational session
  • 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) 14
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
21
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 171
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 18.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? 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
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NR
  • 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
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI Educ Comparison Measure MI vs. Educ


0 months

Mean 4.6 4.3 -0.01
SD 2.2 2.2 -0.62
N Analyzed 58 61 0.61
0.977


3 months

Mean 4.4 4.1
SD 2.3 2.5
N Analyzed 45 53
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: cannabis use joints      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI Educ Comparison Measure MI vs. Educ


0 months

Mean 11.5 11.3 nr
SD 9.3 9.6 nr
N Analyzed 58 61 nr
nr


3 months

Mean 10.4 10.1 0.05
SD 8.4 9.7 -2.04
N Analyzed 58 61 2.14
0.96
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: problems      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI Educ Comparison Measure Educ vs. MI


0 months

Mean 6.2 5.7 nr
SD 4.3 3.7 nr
N Analyzed 58 61 nr
nr


3 months

Mean 6.2 5.7 -0.06
SD 3.8 3.7 -1.11
N Analyzed 58 61 0.98
0.907
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: cannabis dep sxs      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI Educ Comparison Measure MI vs. Educ


0 months

Mean 3.2 3.2 nr
SD 2.5 2.8 nr
N Analyzed 58 61 nr
nr


3 months

Mean 3 3.1 0.04
SD 2.5 2.9 -0.69
N Analyzed 58 61 0.78
0.908


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes
  • 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 No Table 1's differences worry me.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups Yes
  • 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 Low
  • 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 They say participants were blinded, but very high likelihood that the blinding was broken.
  • 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 Not possible
  • 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 Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.