Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments.

Waldron, Holly Barrett; Slesnick, Natasha; Brody, Janet L.; Turner, C. W.; Peterson, Tom

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.5.802

Cited by 366 publications

(353 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

338

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Other studies also demonstrate the efficacy of MI/CBT as a treatment for adolescent SUD. 1,14 The MI/CBT consisted of hour-long, weekly individual sessions and could include up to three family sessions. Cognitive, behavioral, and motivational techniques were used to help adolescents reduce their drug use and improve coping.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents With Substance Use Disorder

Thurstone

Riggs

Salomonsen‐Sautel

et al. 2010

Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To evaluate the effect of atomoxetine hydrochloride versus placebo on attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescents receiving motivational interviewing / cognitive behavioral therapy (MI/CBT) for SUD.Method-This single-site, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between December 2005 and February 2008. Seventy adolescents (13-19 years) with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) ADHD, a DSM-IV ADHD checklist score greater than or equal to 22, and at least one non-tobacco SUD were recruited from the community. All subjects received 12 weeks of atomoxetine hydrochloride + MI/CBT versus placebo + MI/CBT. The main outcome measure for ADHD was self-report DSM-IV ADHD checklist score. For SUD, the main outcome was self-report number of days used non-tobacco substances in the past 28 days using the Timeline Followback interview.Results-Change in ADHD scores did not differ between atomoxetine + MI/CBT and placebo + MI/CBT (F4,191 = 1.23, p = 0.2975). Change in days used non-nicotine substances in the last 28 days did not differ between groups (F3,100 = 2.06, p = 0.1103).Conclusions-There was no significant difference between the atomoxetine + MI/CBT and placebo + MI/CBT groups in ADHD or substance use change. The MI/CBT and/or a placebo effect may have contributed to a large treatment response in the placebo group.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents With Substance Use Disorder

Thurstone

Riggs

Salomonsen‐Sautel

et al. 2010

Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…TLFB data provided the basis for summary variables of number of alcohol use days per month. TLFB alcohol use data have good reliability and validity in adolescent samples (e.g., Donohue et al, 2004;Waldron, Slesnick, Brody, Turner, & Peterson, 2001). Collection of TLFB alcohol use data over the phone also has satisfactory reliability (Sobell & Sobell, 1995).…”

Section: Alcohol Use Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Joint trajectory analysis of treated adolescents' alcohol use and symptoms over 1 year

Chung

Maisto

Cornelius

et al. 2005

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-This study characterized treated adolescents' alcohol use and symptom trajectories over 1 year to describe the form of use trajectories and symptom trajectories, and the joint probability of membership in alcohol use and symptom trajectory groups.Method-109 teens (age 14-18, 66% male, 94% white), recruited from addictions treatment, with a lifetime DSM-IV alcohol diagnosis, reported on daily alcohol use and symptoms in monthly phone contacts using the Time Line Follow-Back method. A group-based modeling method jointly estimated trajectories of use and symptoms.

show abstract

“…Youth provided information "since the last assessment" if a monthly assessment was missed. TLFB data collected from adolescents have good reliability and validity (Donohue et al, 2004(Donohue et al, , 2007Lewis-Esquerre et al, 2005;Waldron et al, 2001). The TLFB yielded the measure PDA from marijuana.…”

Section: Dsm-iv Substance Use Disorder Diagnoses and Symptomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Concurrent and Predictive Validity of Three Measures of Readiness to Change Marijuana Use in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents

Maisto¹,

Krenek²,

Chung³

et al. 2011

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective:The measurement of readiness to change has become common practice in alcohol and drug treatment of both adults and adolescents. Nevertheless, there is relatively little research on the validity of measures of readiness to change among treated adolescents. The purpose of this study was to compare three measures of readiness to change marijuana use commonly used in clinical research and practice with adolescents: the Readiness Ruler, the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES; Factors 1 and 2, Recognition and Taking Steps, respectively), and a staging algorithm. Method: The participants were 174 adolescents presenting for intensive outpatient alcohol and drug treatment who reported current marijuana use at the initial assessment. Evidence for concurrent validity was assessed by computing simple correlations among readiness measures, and correlations of each readiness measure with marijuana involvement (percentage of days abstinent in the last 30 days, problem severity score, and marijuana abuse and dependence symptom count [based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria]) at both the initial/baseline assessment and at a 6-month follow-up assessment. Evidence for predictive validity was based on the results of multilevel regression models of the readiness measures in predicting frequency of marijuana use, symptoms, and problems at 6 months from the initial readiness assessment and then in predicting marijuana use, symptoms, and problems at 12 months from the readiness assessment at 6 months. Results: The results showed evidence for good concurrent and predictive validity for the ruler, the staging algorithm, and Taking Steps but poor evidence for the validity of Recognition. The ruler emerged as the measure with the most clinical utility when brevity and ease of administration are taken into account. Conclusions: Research and clinical implications of the fi ndings are discussed. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 72, 592-601, 2011)

show abstract

Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments.

Cited by 366 publications

References 35 publications

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents With Substance Use Disorder

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adolescents With Substance Use Disorder

Joint trajectory analysis of treated adolescents' alcohol use and symptoms over 1 year

Comparison of the Concurrent and Predictive Validity of Three Measures of Readiness to Change Marijuana Use in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About