Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Eliminating (almost) treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based multisystemic therapy.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Eliminating (almost) treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based multisystemic therapy.
Author Henggeler SW., Pickrel SG., Brondino MJ., Crouch JL.
Country Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA.
Year 1996
Numbers Pubmed ID: 8610836

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and dependent juvenile delinquents: effects on school attendance at posttreatment and 6-month follow-up Brown 1999
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Beyond treatment effects: predicting emerging adult alcohol and marijuana use among substance-abusing delinquents. Clingempeel WG., Henggeler SW., Pickrel SG., Brondino MJ., Randall J. Department of Psychology, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC 28301, USA. wclingempeel@uncfsu.edu 2005
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and dependent delinquents: outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Henggeler SW., Pickrel SG., Brondino MJ. Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA. 1999
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Four-year follow-up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent juvenile offenders. Henggeler SW., Clingempeel WG., Brondino MJ., Pickrel SG. Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA. henggesw@musc.edu 2002
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Fam Multisystemic
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 TAU
  • 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) NA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 118
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 15.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used 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
    ) |
Other ... attrition
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 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: Arrests      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


11 months

N Analyzed 58 59
Counts 23 31
Percentage 40 53
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Counts 24 10
Percentage 55 28
Outcome: pct abstinent for cocaine      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Counts 23 15
Percentage 53 40
Outcome: PEI      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 30 18
SD 34 27
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 18 17
SD 29 27
SE


11 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 19 17
SD 30 29
SE


48 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE
Outcome: PEI      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 36 13
SD 48 34
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 26 21
SD 44 41
SE


11 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 27 23
SD 45 43
SE
Outcome: cannabis urine screens      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean nr nr
SD nr nr
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 36 25
SD 46 36
SE


11 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 27 25
SD 45 43
SE
Outcome: cocaine urine screens      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean nr nr
SD nr nr
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 8 8
SD 16 22
SE


11 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 14 10
SD 35 31
SE
Outcome: SRD      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 62 59
SD 37 40
SE


4 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 40 39
SD 39 36
SE


11 months

N Analyzed 58 60
Mean 32 30
SD 38 36
SE
Outcome: SRD      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 0.89 1.26
SD 2.01 2.39
SE
Outcome: SRD      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 0.61 1.36
SD 0.90 2.21
SE
Outcome: Illegal behavior      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 0.19 0.20
SD 0.43 0.61
SE
Outcome: Illegal behavior      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 0.15 0.57
SD 0.43 1.80
SE
Outcome: nos use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 4.92 5.14
SD 2.35 2.43
SE
Outcome: cocaine use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam TAU


48 months

N Analyzed 43 37
Mean 0.37 0.40
SD 0.94 0.91
SE


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
  • 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 Unsure
  • 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. Unclear
  • 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.