Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing compared with drug information and advice for early intervention among young cannabis users.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing compared with drug information and advice for early intervention among young cannabis users.
Author McCambridge J., Slym RL., Strang J.
Country Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. jim.mccambridge@lshtm.ac.uk
Year 2008
Numbers Pubmed ID: 18778385

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: a qualitative study of advice for young cannabis users. Faulkner N., McCambridge J., Slym RL., Rollnick S. National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. 2009
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Fidelity to Motivational Interviewing and subsequent cannabis cessation among adolescents. McCambridge J., Day M., Thomas BA., Strang J. Centre for Research on Drugs & Health Behaviour, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. Jim.McCambridge@lshtm.ac.uk 2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Educ Drug information and advice-giving
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 MI Motivational interviewing
  • 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
    ) |
19
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 326
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 18.0
  • 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) 1
  • 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 Kingdom
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Risk Difference (RD) 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Risk Difference (RD) 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Risk Difference (RD) 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Educ MI Comparison Measure Educ vs. MI


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164 nr
Counts 0 0 nr
nr
nr


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164 1.45
Counts 26 35 0.65
3.21
0.362


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164 1.48
Counts 35 46 0.84
2.59
0.174
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Educ MI


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164
Counts 53 58


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164
Counts 60 71


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164
Counts 65 63
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Educ MI Comparison Measure Educ vs. MI


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164 nr
Mean 18.3 17.3 nr
SD 10.4 9.8 nr
nr


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164 0.53
Mean 15.9 14.6 -1.23
SD 11.6 11.7 2.29
0.243


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164 -0.28
Mean 14.5 13.8 -2.9
SD 11.8 11.9 2.35
0.354
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: cannabis dep sxs      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Educ MI Comparison Measure Educ vs. MI


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164 nr
Mean 4.6 4.1 nr
SD 3.2 2.9 nr
nr


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164 -0.32
Mean 3.5 3.4 -1.04
SD 3.2 3 0.4
0.354


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164 -0.61
Mean 3.4 3.6 -1.35
SD 3.2 3.2 0.12
0.093
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: problems      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Educ MI Comparison Measure Educ vs. MI


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164 nr
Mean 7 6.5 nr
SD 4.0 4.3 nr
nr


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164 -
Mean 5.3 5.0
SD 4.3 4.1


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164
Mean 5.2 4.7
SD 4.5 4.2
Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value Mean Difference 95% CI low 95% CI high P-Value
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Educ MI Comparison Measure MI vs. Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 162 164
Mean 4.4 4.4
SD 6.5 5.8


3 months

N Analyzed 162 164 -.21
Mean 3.7 4.0 -1.87
SD 5.7 5.5 1.43
0.777


6 months

N Analyzed 162 164 0.45
Mean 4.2 4.0 -1.19
SD 6.3 5.6 2.09
0.557


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 Yes none
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No Data Not stated explicitly (simply). Discuss practitioner fidelity.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Yes same
  • 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-completed questionnaires
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low <=20%
  • 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.