Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Brief motivational interviewing intervention to reduce alcohol and marijuana use for at-risk adolescents in primary care.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Brief motivational interviewing intervention to reduce alcohol and marijuana use for at-risk adolescents in primary care.
Author D'Amico EJ., Parast L., Shadel WG., Meredith LS., Seelam R., Stein BD.
Country RAND Corporation.
Year 2018
Numbers Pubmed ID: 30138016

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 MI CHAT
  • 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) 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 294
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 16.16
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nr
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Alcohol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cannabis
  • 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) 1.61
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nr
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nr
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nr
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nr
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin Upper income
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 5.18 5.64
SD 5.59 5.84
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 6.38 5.95
SD 8.05 7.58
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


3 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 2.76 3.04
SD 4.56 4.79
Outcome: Risks      Population: alcohol
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 6.59 7.86
SD 14.17 16.57


3 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 2.17 3.39
SD 5.05 9.03
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 10.43 9.46
SD 7.93 7.76
Outcome: heavy drinking days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 5.25 5.51
SD 6.23 7.12
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure MI TAU


0 months

N Analyzed 153 141
Mean 10.02 9.51
SD 8.51 8.31


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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups No
  • 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 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
  • 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.