Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Motivational interviewing to reduce substance-related consequences: effects for incarcerated adolescents with depressed mood.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Motivational interviewing to reduce substance-related consequences: effects for incarcerated adolescents with depressed mood.
Author Stein LA., Clair M., Lebeau R., Colby SM., Barnett NP., Golembeske C., Monti PM.
Country Social Sciences Research Center, University of Rhode Island, 2 Chafee Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. LARStein@URI.EDU
Year 2011
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21531089

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Ethnicity as a moderator of motivational interviewing for incarcerated adolescents after release. Clair M., Stein LA., Soenksen S., Martin RA., Lebeau R., Golembeske C. Social Sciences Research Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. mclair@uri.edu 2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized Clinical Trial of Motivational Enhancement of Substance Use Treatment Among Incarcerated Adolescents: Post-Release Condom Non-Use. Rosengard C., Stein LA., Barnett NP., Monti PM., Golembeske C., Lebeau-Craven R., Miranda R. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University Medical School. 2008
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Effects of motivational interviewing for incarcerated adolescents on driving under the influence after release. Stein LA., Colby SM., Barnett NP., Monti PM., Golembeske C., Lebeau-Craven R. University of Rhode Island, Psychology Department and Cancer Prevention Research Center, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. LARStein@uri.edu 2006
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Motivational interviewing for incarcerated adolescents: effects of depressive symptoms on reducing alcohol and marijuana use after release. Stein LA., Lebeau R., Colby SM., Barnett NP., Golembeske C., Monti PM. Social Sciences Research Center, University of Rhode Island, 2 Chafee Rd., Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA. LARStein@uri.edu 2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU Relaxation training
  • 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
    ) |
19
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 189
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 17.12
  • 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) 1.1
  • 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 States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Risks      Population: cannabis
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 65 31
Mean 0.145 0.109
SD 0.203 0.155
Outcome: Risks      Population: alcohol
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 65 31
Mean 0.069 0.088
SD 0.117 0.155


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No Data
  • 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 No Data
  • 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 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. Low
  • 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.