Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment.
Author Godley MD., Godley SH., Dennis ML., Funk R., Passetti LL.
Country Chestnut Health Systems, 720 W. Chestnut Street, Bloomington, IL 61701, USA. mgodley@chestnut.org
Year 2002
Numbers Pubmed ID: 12127465

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
The Washington Circle continuity of care performance measure: predictive validity with adolescents discharged from residential treatment. Garner BR., Godley MD., Funk RR., Lee MT., Garnick DW. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal, IL 61761, USA. brgarner@chestnut.org 2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
The effect of assertive continuing care on continuing care linkage, adherence and abstinence following residential treatment for adolescents with substance use disorders. Godley MD., Godley SH., Dennis ML., Funk RR., Passetti LL. Chestnut Health Systems, Bloomington, IL 61701, USA. mgodley@chestnut.org 2007
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT_ICM assertive continuing care
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU usual continuing care
  • 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
    ) |
17
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 114
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) NA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Opioid
  • 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) NA
  • 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 ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_ICM TAU


0 months

Mean 12.6 9.9
N Analyzed 63 51
95% CI low 7 5
95% CI high 18 15


3 months

Mean 4.5 8.1
N Analyzed 63 51
95% CI low 2 3
95% CI high 7 13
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_ICM TAU


0 months

Mean 36 32.4
N Analyzed 63 51
95% CI low 26 23
95% CI high 44 41


3 months

Mean 12.6 17.1
N Analyzed 63 51
95% CI low 6 9
95% CI high 18 24


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes Per Godley-2007-17207126
  • 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 none
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No 51% completed treatment
  • 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 Per Godley-2007-17207126
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Low
  • 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 Per Godley-2007-17207126
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
Guideline Used Overall Rating