Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A comparison of three interventions for homeless youth evidencing substance use disorders: results of a randomized clinical trial.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title A comparison of three interventions for homeless youth evidencing substance use disorders: results of a randomized clinical trial.
Author Slesnick N., Guo X., Brakenhoff B., Bantchevska D.
Country Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University. Electronic address: slesnick.5@osu.edu.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 25736623

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Evaluation of Treatments for Homeless Youths Slesnick 2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT Community reinforcement approach (CRA)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 MI Motivational enhancement therapy (MET)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 ICM Case management (CM)
  • 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
    ) |
20
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 270
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 18.74
  • 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? Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mental health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Physical health
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years) 1.26
  • 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: nos use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT MI ICM


0 months

Mean 58.76 68.36 55.47
SD 39.34 36.2 34.67
N Analyzed 93 86 91


3 months

Mean 53.6 45.67 49.38
SD 40.76 43.42 40.66
N Analyzed 93 86 91


6 months

Mean 41.2 48.36 43.92
SD 39.1 40.85 40.73
N Analyzed 93 86 91


12 months

Mean 40.17 49.21 46.3
SD 39.87 40.97 38.86
N Analyzed 93 86 91
Within-Arm Comparisons
Comparison Measure CBT MI ICM
0 months vs. 12 months Mean Difference -0.52 -0.45 -0.31
95% CI low -0.86 -0.77 -0.64
95% CI high -0.19 -0.12 0.02
N Analyzed 93 86 91
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT MI ICM


0 months

Mean 15.11 16.7 12.42
SD 23.45 23.92 18.36
N Analyzed 93 86 91


3 months

Mean 10.36 8.5 10.13
SD 15.65 14.07 18.38
N Analyzed 93 86 91


6 months

Mean 8.8 6.23 11.88
SD 18.27 14.93 21.66
N Analyzed 93 86 91


12 months

Mean 6.66 8.94 9.37
SD 11.82 18.41 18.58
N Analyzed 93 86 91


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 Same
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No 30% did not attend >=25% of sessions
  • 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 Computer
  • 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 High 25% loss
  • 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.