Outpatient interventions for adolescent substance abuse: A quality of evidence review.

Abstract

Previous reviews of outpatient interventions for adolescent substance abuse have been limited in the extent to which they considered the methodological quality of individual studies. The authors assessed 31 randomized trials of outpatient interventions for adolescent substance abuse on 14 attributes of trial quality. A quality of evidence score was calculated for each study and used to compare the evidence in support of different outpatient interventions. Across studies, frequently reported methodological attributes included presence of an active comparison condition, reporting of baseline data, use of treatment manuals, and verification of self-reported outcomes. Infrequently reported attributes included power and determination of sample size, techniques to randomize participants to condition, specification of hypotheses and primary outcomes, use of treatment adherence ratings, blind assessment, and inclusion of dropouts in the analysis. Treatment models with evidence of immediate superiority in 2 or more methodologically stronger studies included ecological family therapy, brief motivational interventions, and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Evidence Base on Outpatient Behavioral Treatments for Adolescent Substance Use: Updates and Recommendations 2007–2013

“…Tripodi and Bender (2011) reviewed 10 treatment studies examining alcohol or marijuana outcomes in samples of juvenile offenders and concluded that FBTs and individual-based treatments had similar, small-to-moderate effects on ASU outcomes. A review by Becker and Curry (2008) took the additional step of systematically rating the methodological rigor of ASU treatment studies (see also Calabria, EVIDENCE BASE UPDATE ASU Shakeshaft, & Havard, 2011) to generate quality-ofevidence data on each. They devised 14 specific quality attributes compiled primarily from CONSORT (Moher, Schultz, & Altman, 2001) and Methodological Quality Rating Scale (W. R. Miller et al, 1995) criteria.…”

“…Type 2 studies are defined as comparative studies in which some Type 1 criteria are missing, but the study is not fatally flawed (note that the 11 inclusion criteria just described automatically eliminated studies that did not qualify as at least Type 2). To create more reliable standards, the Nathan and Gorman criteria were further operationalized as follows, incorporating attributes for judging methodological quality derived from Becker and Curry (2008): (a) Random assignment: as reported in the study; (b) Blind assessment: presumed true or near-true unless reported otherwise; (c) Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: adequately described sample selection procedures and demographic and clinical characteristics; (d) Strong ASU measurement: used a calendar-based or objective measure of SU; (e) Sample size: at least 49 participants per condition, 1 or, power justification is specifically described; (f) Follow-up duration: 6 months or longer; (g) Statistical analysis: used intent-to-treat analyses, reported between-group effect sizes for ASU, and used methods adequate to examine change over time.…”

Effet d'un traitement de l'abus de substances psychotropes sur la détresse psychologique et le fonctionnement exécutif autorégulateur, chez des adolescents présentant une problématique de consommation /

“…ex., approche de réduction des méfaits). Les thérapies familiales systémiques, les approches cognitivo-comportementales et les traitements en groupe de pairs ont reçu des preuves empiriques solides de leur efficacité (Becker & Curry, 2008;Dyer 2006;Liddle, Dakof, Turner, Henderson, & Greenbaum, 2008).…”

Évolution de la perception de l'importance des parents, des amis et des adultes non apparentés au cours d'un traitement de la toxicomanie chez l'adolescent, selon le sexe /

“…Les services offerts durant le traitement de la toxicomanie chez les adolescents reposent sur des approches diverses : familiale, cognitive-behaviorale, Minnesota en 12 étapes, motivationnelle, et milieu de vie thérapeutique (Becker & Curry, 2008;Brunelle, Landry & Bertrand, 2008;Kaminer & Burleson, 1999;Waldron & Turner, 2008).…”