Observational studyJournal of substance abuse treatment2020
Expanding outcomes when considering the relative effectiveness of two evidence-based outpatient treatment programs for adolescents.
Observational study in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volunteer Recovery Support for Adolescents: Using propensity score based methods to understand dosage effects within a randomized controlled trial.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2022Trial
- A tutorial comparing different covariate balancing methods with an application evaluating the causal effects of substance use treatment programs for adolescents.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2023Article
- Comparative effectiveness of individual versus family-based substance use treatment on adolescent self-injurious thoughts and behaviors.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2022Article
- Best practices in statistical computing.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Nonparametric Estimation of Population Average Dose-Response Curves using Entropy Balancing Weights for Continuous Exposures.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The current study seeks to advance understanding about how to address substance use and co-occurring mental health problems in adolescents. Specifically, we compared the effectiveness of two evidence-based treatment programs (Motivational Enhancement Treatment/Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 5 Sessions [MET/CBT5] and Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]) for both substance use and mental health outcomes (i.e., crossover effects). We used statistical methods designed to approximate randomized controlled trials when comparing nonequivalent groups using observational study data. Our methods also included an assessment of the potential impact of omitted variables. We found that after applying balancing weighting to ensure similarity of the baseline samples (given the nonrandomized study design), both groups significantly improved on the two substance use outcomes (days abstinent and percent of youth in recovery) and on the two mental health outcomes (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and general emotional problems). Youth in A-CRA were significantly more likely to be in recovery at the 3-month follow-up compared to youth in MET/CBT5, but the size of this effect was very small. Youth receiving MET/CBT5 appeared to show significantly more improvement in the two mental health measures compared to youth in A-CRA, though these effect sizes were also very small. The findings indicate that adolescents with co-occurring substance use and mental health problems improve on both substance use and mental health outcomes with both treatments even though they are not specifically targeting mental health problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.