Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The efficacy of single-session motivational interviewing in reducing drug consumption and perceptions of drug-related risk and harm among young people: results from a multi-site cluster randomized trial.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title The efficacy of single-session motivational interviewing in reducing drug consumption and perceptions of drug-related risk and harm among young people: results from a multi-site cluster randomized trial.
Author McCambridge J., Strang J.
Country National Addiction Centre (The Maudsley/Institute of Psychiatry), London, UK. J.McCambridge@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Year 2004
Numbers Pubmed ID: 14678061

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Deterioration over time in effect of Motivational Interviewing in reducing drug consumption and related risk among young people. McCambridge J., Strang J. National Addiction Centre (The Maudsley/Institute of Psychiatry), London, UK. J.McCambridge@iop.kcl.ac.uk 2005
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 TAU
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 MI
  • 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) 16
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
20
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 200
  • 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
    ) |
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) NA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type Cluster randomized 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 Kingdom
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 65 86
Counts 1 7
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 82 97
Counts 4 16
Outcome: pct abstinent for stimulants      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 34 26
Counts 0 2
Outcome: Illegal behavior      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 97 82
Percentage 15 40
Outcome: Illegal behavior      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure TAU MI


3 months

N Analyzed 97 82
Percentage 7 14
Mean Difference (Net) 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: alcohol drinks      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 97 82
Mean 12.7 12.7
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 97 82 -5.49
Mean 14.2 7.7 -7.94
SD -1.96
SE
Mean Difference (Net) 95% CI low 95% CI high Mean Difference (Net) 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: canabis use      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure TAU MI Comparison Measure MI vs. TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 97 82
Mean 13.3 15.7
SD
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 97 82 -11.51
Mean 16.9 5.4 -15.49
SD -7.53
SE


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
  • 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 Not Applicable Single session intervention.
  • 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 High
  • 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 Unsatisfactory text on page 42.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low I said Low because attrition was <20%, but feel somewhat uncomfortable saying Low because they point out differences in attrition by factors such as age, student status, and missing work/college days.
  • 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.