Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Augmenting brief interventions for adolescent marijuana users: The impact of motivational check-ins.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Augmenting brief interventions for adolescent marijuana users: The impact of motivational check-ins.
Author Walker DD., Stephens RS., Blevins CE., Banes KE., Matthews L., Roffman RA.
Country Innovative Programs Research Group.
Year 2016
Numbers Pubmed ID: 27762569

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
A preliminary evaluation of synthetic cannabinoid use among adolescent cannabis users: Characteristics and treatment outcomes. Blevins CE., Banes KE., Stephens RS., Walker DD., Roffman RA. Virginia Tech, Department of Psychology, (0436) 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States. Electronic address: claireb9@vt.edu. 2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Change in motives among frequent cannabis-using adolescents: Predicting treatment outcomes. Blevins CE., Banes KE., Stephens RS., Walker DD., Roffman RA. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA; Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Butler Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. Electronic address: Claire_Blevins@Brown.edu. 2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Changing social norms: The impact of normative feedback included in motivational enhancement therapy on cannabis outcomes among heavy-using adolescents. Blevins CE., Walker DD., Stephens RS., Banes KE., Roffman RA. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States; Butler Hospital, Providence, RI, United States. Electronic address: Claire_Blevins@Brown.edu. 2018
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT_MI_b Motivational Check-In
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 CBT_MI_a Assessment-only Check-In
  • 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) 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
17
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 252
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 15.84
  • 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) 0.96
  • 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 States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a


0 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 36.8 37.35
SD 15.16 15.01


6 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 26.64 32.66
SD 20.25 19.91


9 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 28.35 31.8
SD 22.12 20.58


12 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 26.94 31.09
SD 22.75 21.26


15 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 29.33 31.51
SD 23.09 21.33
Outcome: cannabis abuse sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a


0 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 3.66 3.65
SD 2.62 2.61


6 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 2.26 3.05
SD 2.57 2.9


9 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.82 2.26
SD 2.37 2.62


12 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.67 2.28
SD 2.43 2.82


15 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.84 2.44
SD 2.68 3.13
Outcome: problems      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_MI_b CBT_MI_a


0 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.59 1.63
SD 0.44 0.46


6 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.33 1.49
SD 0.55 0.69


9 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.22 1.34
SD 0.58 0.62


12 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.21 1.31
SD 0.75 0.68


15 months

N Analyzed 128 124
Mean 1.24 1.37
SD 0.81 0.8


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
  • 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 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. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data High Low % loss, but differential across groups.
  • 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.