Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

An evaluation of a brief motivational intervention among young ecstasy and cocaine users: no effect on substance and alcohol use outcomes.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title An evaluation of a brief motivational intervention among young ecstasy and cocaine users: no effect on substance and alcohol use outcomes.
Author Marsden J., Stillwell G., Barlow H., Boys A., Taylor C., Hunt N., Farrell M.
Country Division of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. j.marsden@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Year 2006
Numbers Pubmed ID: 16771893

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
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 16
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
22
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 342
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 18.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Stimulant
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Stimulant
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Behavioral
  • 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
    ) |
Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 2
  • 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)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value F P-Value F
Outcome: ecstasy use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 166 176 nr
Mean 18.75 17.31 nr
SD 17.8 16.2


6 months

N Analyzed 166 176 0.1
Mean 8.2 8.7 0.75
SD 13.5 13.2
P-Value F P-Value F
Outcome: cocaine use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 166 176 nr
Mean 9.47 9.42 nr
SD 13.8 14.2


6 months

N Analyzed 166 176 6.4
Mean 5.54 7.4 0.01
SD 11.5 12.6
P-Value F P-Value F
Outcome: crack use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 166 176 nr
Mean 9.48 11.73 nr
SD 21.4 22.9


6 months

N Analyzed 166 176 0.3
Mean 4.67 5.73 1.1
SD 15.51 15.8
P-Value F P-Value F
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 166 176 nr
Mean 57.07 59.26 nr
SD 34.7 34.3


6 months

N Analyzed 166 176 0.49
Mean 52.01 57.24 0.47
SD 36.5 36.3
P-Value F P-Value F
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 166 176 nr
Mean 30.5 32.2 nr
SD 27.1 25.9


6 months

N Analyzed 166 176 0.14
Mean 28.87 30.66 2.2
SD 25.7 25.3


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 No Alcohol use and employment status seemed imbalanced.
  • 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
  • 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 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. High Mostly self-recorded outcomes. The toxicology was only conducted for a random subset of participants.
  • 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
No quality rating data was found.