Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Outcomes of a family-based HIV prevention intervention for substance using juvenile offenders.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Outcomes of a family-based HIV prevention intervention for substance using juvenile offenders.
Author Tolou-Shams M., Dauria E., Conrad SM., Kemp K., Johnson S., Brown LK.
Country University of California, San Francisco, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, United States; Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, Division of Infant Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, United States. Electronic address: Marina.Tolou-Shams@ucsf.edu.
Year 2017
Numbers Pubmed ID: 28476263

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


Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 CBT_Fam Family-based Affect Management Intervention (FAMI)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Educ Health Promotion Intervention (HPI)
  • 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) 47
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years) 15.62
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used 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
    ) |
Other ... Sexual Risk Reduction
  • 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 ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Sex      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 15 12
Counts 9 9
Percentage 60.0 75.0


3 months

N Analyzed 16 12
Counts 8 7
Percentage 50 58.3
Outcome: Sex      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 15 12
Counts 12 9
Percentage 80 75


3 months

N Analyzed 14 9
Counts 8 4
Percentage 57.1 44.4
Outcome: alcohol use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 3.56 3.14
SD 5.54 9.71
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 3.48 3.00
SD 5.36 6.71
SE
Outcome: cannabis use days      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 36.64 15.36
SD 40.14 24.79
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 26.24 19.45
SD 37.15 31.90
SE
Outcome: Sex      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure CBT_Fam Educ


0 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 5.05 2.32
SD 12.28 10.09
SE


3 months

N Analyzed 25 22
Mean 4.01 2.95
SD 10.98 10.22
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation No Call it modified ITT, but really a completers analysis.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators No Differences in alcohol use, not accounted for
  • 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 25% completed <1/2 sessions; 22% did none.
  • 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 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, on computer
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 6% loss (among those who went to at least one session)
  • 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.