Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Community partnership to affect substance abuse among Native American adolescents.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Community partnership to affect substance abuse among Native American adolescents.
Author Lowe J., Liang H., Riggs C., Henson J., Elder T.
Country Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University , Davie, FL 33314, USA. jlowe@fau.edu
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22931079

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Educ Standard Substance Abuse Education
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 PeerGroup Cherokee Talking Circle
  • 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) 13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 179
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.53
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Opioid
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Stimulant
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Opioid
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Stimulant
  • 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) 1.27
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT quasi-experiment
  • 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: nos sxs      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Educ PeerGroup


0 days

Mean 25.36 23.53
95% CI low 21.12 19.44
95% CI high 29.59 27.62
N Analyzed 92 87


70 days

Mean 27.50 16.22
95% CI low 23.52 12.38
95% CI high 31.48 20.07
N Analyzed 92 87


160 days

Mean 27.47 10.34
95% CI low 23.18 6.2
95% CI high 31.77 14.49
N Analyzed 92 87
Outcome: SPS      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Educ PeerGroup


0 days

Mean 2.44 2.71
95% CI low 1.5 1.79
95% CI high 3.38 3.62
N Analyzed 87 92


70 days

Mean 3.77 1.26
95% CI low 2.86 0.37
95% CI high 4.68 2.15
N Analyzed 87 92


160 days

Mean 3.46 0.65
95% CI low 2.61 -0.17
95% CI high 4.31 1.47
N Analyzed 87 92


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 based only on age and sex.
  • 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 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 Self-reported outcomes.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Unclear
  • 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.