Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Peer Network Counseling with Urban Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Moderate Substance Users.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Peer Network Counseling with Urban Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Moderate Substance Users.
Author Mason M., Light J., Campbell L., Keyser-Marcus L., Crewe S., Way T., Saunders H., King L., Zaharakis NM., McHenry C.
Country Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: Mjmason@vcu.edu.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26234955

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Reducing social stress in urban adolescents with peer network counseling Mason 2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Peer Network Counseling as Brief Treatment for Urban Adolescent Heavy Cannabis Users. Mason MJ., Sabo R., Zaharakis NM. Department of Psychiatry, Commonwealth Institute for Child & Family Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 2017
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



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
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 14
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 119
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Opioid
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Stimulant
  • 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) 1.2
  • 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 ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


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


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


1 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


6 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: female
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 0.69 1.2
SD
SE


1 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 0.70 1.1
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 0.72 0.98
SD
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 0.76 0.81
SD
SE
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 0.52 0.50
SD
SE


1 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 0.47 0.54
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 0.36 0.64
SD
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 0.26 0.59
SD
SE
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: female
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 1.06 1.68
SD
SE


1 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 1.07 1.57
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 1.09 1.40
SD
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 44 40
Mean 1.12 1.17
SD
SE
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: male
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 1.60 1.12
SD
SE


1 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 1.53 1.18
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 1.42 1.26
SD
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 15 20
Mean 1.27 1.43
SD
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes Everyone, bar 1 participant, received their randomized interventions and was analyzed as such.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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.