Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments.
Author Waldron HB., Slesnick N., Brody JL., Turner CW., Peterson TR.
Country Center for Family and Adolescent Research and Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131, USA. hwaldron@unm.edu
Year 2001
Numbers Pubmed ID: 11680557

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. French MT., Zavala SK., McCollister KE., Waldron HB., Turner CW., Ozechowski TJ. Health Economics Research Group, Department of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA. mfrench@miami.edu 2008
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Fam
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 CBT_MI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 CBT_MI_Fam
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4 Educ group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
17
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 120
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 15.43
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SUD (not further described, except maybe excluding nicotine)
  • 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
    ) |
Substance-related problems or symptoms scale
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.01
  • 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 Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam CBT_MI CBT_MI_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 54.88 52.19 56.73 66.21
SD 32.71 32.37 34.96 27.02
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 24.95 52.09 38.08 55.73
SD 26.96 40.10 36.49 34.86
SE


7 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 40.10 51.13 36.44 41.88
SD 40.07 37.35 37.24 40.06
SE
Outcome: YSR      Population: 122457
Time Point Measure Fam CBT_MI CBT_MI_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 9.4 11.3 11.3 10.3
SD 3.8 3.9 4.1 3.4
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 8.2 10.2 9.1 9.5
SD 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.5
SE


7 months

N Analyzed 30 31 29 30
Mean 9.2 10.4 8.5 9.4
SD 3.8 4.7 4.2 3.7
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No Said used ITT, but those without follow-up data not analyzed.
  • 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 11/120 noncompliant (1 or 2 sessions only)
  • 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 Urn randomization
  • 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. Unclear Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 5%
  • 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.