Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Brief intervention for drug-abusing adolescents in a school setting: outcomes and mediating factors.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Brief intervention for drug-abusing adolescents in a school setting: outcomes and mediating factors.
Author Winters KC., Fahnhorst T., Botzet A., Lee S., Lalone B.
Country Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. winte001@umn.edu
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22000326

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Parental involvement in brief interventions for adolescent marijuana use. Piehler TF., Winters KC. Department of Family Social Science. 2015
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Decision-making style and response to parental involvement in brief interventions for adolescent substance use. Piehler TF., Winters KC. Department of Family Social Science. 2017
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
One-year outcomes and mediators of a brief intervention for drug abusing adolescents. Winters KC., Lee S., Botzet A., Fahnhorst T., Nicholson A. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota Medical School. 2014
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI_a Brief Intervention - Adolescent Only (BI-A)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 MI_b Brief Intervention - Adolescent Plus Parent Session (BI-AP)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 TAU Con
  • 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) 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 283
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • 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) 1.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT United States
  • 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
Outcome: pct abstinent for alcohol      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 56
Percentage 53.5 47.3 26.1


12 months

N Analyzed 122 114 28
Percentage 30.6 42.3 6.3
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


6 months

N Analyzed 134 123 56
Percentage 51.0 62.5 37.0


12 months

N Analyzed 122 114 48
Percentage 42.6 56.4 12.5
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU Comparison Measure


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 4.8 4.2 4.5
SD 7.5 5.8 6.7


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 3.9 2.8 10.5
SD 5.8 4.4 11.8


12 months

N Analyzed 122 114 48
Mean 2.5 2.6 3.1
SD 1.4 1.4 1.4
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 23.4 24.3 30.4
SD 33.2 28.4 18.1


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 11.5 8.5 14.9
SD 17.8 14.3 18.1


12 months

N Analyzed 122 114 48
Mean 2.7 2.4 3.7
SD 1.8 1.9 1.6
Outcome: PCS      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 15.8 15.0 15.5
SD 4.6 4.1 4.8


6 months

N Analyzed 134 123 56
Mean 12.8 12.1 13.5
SD 3.4 2.0 3.1


12 months

N Analyzed 122 114 48
Mean 12.4 12.6 14.7
SD 2.5 2.6 3.8
Outcome: alcohol abuse sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 3.0 3.2 3.5
SD 2.9 3.1 3.3


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 0.7 0.4 1.3
SD 1.4 1.1 1.9
Outcome: alcohol dep sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 3.6 3.4 3.7
SD 3.1 3.2 3.8


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 1.0 0.7 2.6
SD 2.1 1.6 3.9
Outcome: cannabis abuse sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 4.5 4.3 4.6
SD 3.9 3.4 3.8


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 1.1 0.8 1.8
SD 1.8 2.1 2.6
Outcome: cannabis dep sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI_a MI_b TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 136 123 56
Mean 3.7 3.9 4.0
SD 3.8 3.3 3.7


6 months

N Analyzed 134 122 55
Mean 1.5 1.0 2.2
SD 2.6 2.1 3.0


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes Per Winters-2014-24955669
  • 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 Yes Brief 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 Same
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. Yes The assessment-only control group was recruited later than the two intervention groups. Recruitment cut short, resulting in TAU being 1/2 the N of intervention arms.
  • 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 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. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 4/315
  • 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.