Trial reportJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2026
Legal outcomes of task-shifting contingency management for youth substance use to rural probation officers: Secondary results from a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveYouth substance use disorder is a significant problem in rural communities, yet treatment access is negligible. Task-shifting evidence-based treatments to juvenile probation officers (JPOs) may help, but could increase surveillance and thus be iatrogenic for legal outcomes. Task-shifting contingency management (CM) to JPOs was examined for increased youth legal system consequences.
methodData were from a randomized clinical trial that randomized 32 JPOs in Idaho to probation as usual (PAU) or family-based CM integrated into probation. Then, 160 youth with substance use disorder on probation were randomized to JPOs delivering PAU or JPO-delivered CM. Legal system records (charges and detentions) spanning 18 months before and after randomization were obtained for each youth from the state database.
resultsFor CM and PAU groups, respectively, 32.6% versus 51.4% had at least one charge postrandomization, 22.1% versus 20.3% had at least one detention, and median charge count was 0.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-1.0) versus 1.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-2.0). Intent-to-treat generalized linear mixed effects models nested youth within JPOs. Groups did not differ on charge count (event rates = 1.12; 95% CI [0.29, 4.36]) or likelihood of detention (OR = 1.54; 95% CI [0.65, 3.65]). However, CM youth had a significantly lower likelihood of receiving a charge (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.21, 0.83]), with a predicted probability of 31% (95% CI [21%, 42%]) versus 52% for PAU (95% CI [40%, 63%]).
conclusionsYouth legal system consequences do not worsen when JPOs deliver CM. The likelihood of a new charge actually decreases when JPOs deliver CM. Task-shifting CM for youth substance use to JPOs could increase treatment access in rural communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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.