Behavior therapy for drug abuse: A controlled treatment outcome study

Azrin, Nathan H.; McMahon, P. T.; Donohue, Brad; Besalel, Victoria A.; Lapinski, K.J.; Kogan, E. S.; Acierno, Ron; Galloway, Emma

doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90166-x

Cited by 143 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While it is possible that treatment effects consolidate over time, making relapse less likely, this study finds the contrary: an increased chance that treatment participants returned to preintervention levels of drinking when there was a longer follow-up period. Reduced effects of interventions over time may occur as youths reduce how often they use skills developed in treatment, and other influences such as deviant peer groups may have greater influenceoveryouthproblembehaviorpostintervention.Nonetheless, the following interventions resulted in significant reductions in alcohol use at 12 months posttreatment: behavioraltreatment 13 andmultidimensionalfamilytreatment. 17 Considering that these interventions focus on altering maladaptive behaviors, it appears that behavior-based treatment, whether individual-or family-based, is beneficial in attaining long-term change.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated reductions in adolescentalcoholuseacrossindividualinterventionapproaches. 8,13 Most research on reducing adolescents' substance use has evaluated family-based interventions. 5 Because family dynamics are an integral component in the lives of adolescents, many consider the family to be an essential consideration when treating substance-abusing adolescents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Alcohol Abuse

Tripodi

Bender

Litschge

et al. 2010

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Alcohol Abuse

Tripodi

Bender

Litschge

et al. 2010

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sixteen primary studies were included with young people aged 12-19 years. 81,105,[107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] The studies included various interventions including BI, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and multidimensional family therapy 81,85,121,122 No information was given on the nature of the interventions; however, the number of sessions ranged from one to four. The age range included in the studies was 12-23 years.…”

Section: Primary and Secondary Prevention Interventions For Risky Drimentioning

confidence: 99%

A pilot feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent hazardous drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH)

Newbury‐Birch

Scott

O’Donnell

et al. 2014

Public Health Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A pilot feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent hazardous drinking in young people aged 14-15 years in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PHR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Public Health Research journalReports are published in Public Health Research (PHR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PHR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Public Health Research are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. PHR programmeThe Public Health Research (PHR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), evaluates public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of non-NHS interventions intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities in health. The scope of the programme is multi-disciplinary and broad, covering a range of interventions that improve public health. The Public Health Research programme also complements the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme which has a growing portfolio evaluating NHS public health interventions.For more information about the PHR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/phr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the PHR programme as project number 10/3002/07. The contractual start date was in October 2011. The final report began editorial review in September 2013 and was accepted for publication in June 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PHR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the PHR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors,...

show abstract

“…Empirical support for family-based treatments is well-established (Liddle & Dakof, 1995;Stanton & Shadish, 1997;Waldron 1997;Waldron, Turner, & Ozechowski, 2006). Family-based approaches include Functional Family Therapy (FFT) (Waldron et al, 2001), Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) (Liddle et al, 2001), Multisystemic Therapy (MST) (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, & Cunningham, 1998;Henggeler et al, 2002), Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) (Szapocznik, PerezVidal, Brickman, Foote, Santisteban, Hervis, & Kurtines, 1988), and Behavioral Family Therapy (BFT) (Azrin et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent randomized field studies of adolescent outpatient treatment have evaluated a wide variety of treatment approaches, including cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), alone and in combination with a motivational interviewing approach (Kaminer, Burleson, & Goldberger, 2001;Waldron, Slesnick, Brody, Turner, & Peterson, 2001); family therapy approaches (Henggeler, Clingempeel, Brondino, & Pickrel, 2002, Henggeler, Borduin, Melton, Mann, Smith, Hall, Cone, & Fucci, 1991Liddle, Dakof, Parker, Diamond, Barrett, & Tejada, 2001;Waldron et al, 2001;Joanning, Quinn, Thomas, & Mullen, 1992); group psychoeducational approaches (Kaminer, Burleson, & Goldberger, 2002;Waldron et al, 2001); and individual behavior therapy approaches (Diamond, Godley, Liddle, Sampl, Webb, Tims, & Meyers, 2002;Azrin, McMahon, Donohue, Besalel, Lapinski, Kogan, Acierno, & Galloway, 1994;Waldron & Kaminer, 2004). Empirical support for family-based treatments is well-established (Liddle & Dakof, 1995;Stanton & Shadish, 1997;Waldron 1997;Waldron, Turner, & Ozechowski, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder

French

Zavala

McCollister

et al. 2008

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use among adolescents in the U.S. continues to be a serious public health challenge. A variety of outpatient treatments for adolescent substance use disorders have been developed and evaluated. Although no specific treatment modality is effective in all settings, a number of promising adolescent interventions have emerged. As policy makers try to prioritize which programs to fund with limited public resources, the need for systematic economic evaluations of these programs is critical. The present study attempted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of four interventions, including family-based, individual, and group cognitive behavioral approaches, for adolescents with a substance use disorder. The results indicated that treatment costs varied substantially across the four interventions. Moreover, family therapy showed significantly better substance use outcome compared to group treatment at the 4-month assessment, but group treatment was similar to the other interventions for substance use outcome at the 7-month assessment and for delinquency outcome at both the 4-month and 7-month assessments. These findings over a relatively short follow-up period suggest that the least expensive intervention (group) was the most cost effective. However, this study encountered numerous data and methodological challenges in trying to supplement a completed clinical trial with an economic evaluation. These challenges are explained and recommendations are proposed to guide future economic evaluations in this area. KeywordsCost-effectiveness analysis; adolescent substance use interventions; substance use disorders; adolescent treatment outcomes; behavioral and family-based interventions

show abstract

Behavior therapy for drug abuse: A controlled treatment outcome study

Cited by 143 publications

References 23 publications

Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Alcohol Abuse

Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Alcohol Abuse

A pilot feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of screening and brief alcohol intervention to prevent hazardous drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in a high school setting (SIPS JR-HIGH)

Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About