Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The adolescent cannabis check-up: randomized trial of a brief intervention for young cannabis users.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title The adolescent cannabis check-up: randomized trial of a brief intervention for young cannabis users.
Author Martin G., Copeland J.
Country National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW, Australia. g.martin@unsw.edu.au
Year 2008
Numbers Pubmed ID: 17869051

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI BI MET (Adolescent Cannabis Check-up (ACCU))
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU Delayed Treatment Control
  • 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) 15
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
25
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 261
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 20.60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? 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
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 2.6
  • 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 ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... France
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

Mean 74.1 55.4
SD 24.6 31.4
N Analyzed 20 20


3 months

Mean 54.3 54.5
SD 36.1 31.6
N Analyzed 20 20
Within-Arm Comparisons
Comparison Measure MI TAU
3 months vs. 0 months N Analyzed 20 20
Mean Difference -19.0 -1.2
SD 28.6 23.3
Mean Difference SD P-Value Mean Difference SD P-Value
Outcome: cannabis dep sxs      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI TAU Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

Mean 5.8 4.8 -2.1
SD 1.2 2.1 2.5
N Analyzed 20 20 nr


3 months

Mean 3.8 4.2 -0.6
SD 2.8 2 1.7
N Analyzed 20 20 0.04


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
  • 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 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 Self-reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low Uggh...exactly 20%. I went with 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.