OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how adolescents with marijuana problems who received a research-based treatment (five sessions of motivational enhancement therapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy [MET/CBT5]) in an experimental setting would have fared had they received exemplary community-based outpatient treatment. METHOD: Twelve-month outcomes representing six domains (substance use problems, substance use frequency, emotional problems, illegal activities, recovery, and institutionalization) were assessed for youth who received MET/CBT5 in the Cannabis Youth Treatment study and youth who received outpatient treatment from one of three community-based programs selected for evidence of efficacy. Groups were matched on pretreatment characteristics using a propensity score weighting strategy. RESULTS: Youth who received MET/CBT5 exhibited greater reductions in substance use frequency, substance use problems, and illegal behaviors 12 months after treatment entry than had they entered the community based outpatient programs. Results showed no evidence that youth who received MET/CBT5 would have fared better with respect to emotional problems, the likelihood of being institutionalized, or achieving a "recovery" status at 12 months had they received community-based treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The community-based treatments used in this study have not been assessed relative to "treatment as usual" but were selected as "exemplary" models of adolescent treatment. There is no evidence in this study that these exemplary programs yielded superior 12-month outcomes for the treatment of adolescents with marijuana problems; youth receiving MET/CBT5 experienced greater reductions in substance use and illegal activities. Thus, MET/CBT5 may be a promising treatment for community-based providers to adopt to treat these clients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how adolescents with marijuana problems who received a research-based treatment (five sessions of motivational enhancement therapy plus cognitive behavioral therapy [MET/CBT5]) in an experimental setting would have fared had they received exemplary community-based outpatient treatment. METHOD: Twelve-month outcomes representing six domains (substance use problems, substance use frequency, emotional problems, illegal activities, recovery, and institutionalization) were assessed for youth who received MET/CBT5 in the Cannabis Youth Treatment study and youth who received outpatient treatment from one of three community-based programs selected for evidence of efficacy. Groups were matched on pretreatment characteristics using a propensity score weighting strategy. RESULTS: Youth who received MET/CBT5 exhibited greater reductions in substance use frequency, substance use problems, and illegal behaviors 12 months after treatment entry than had they entered the community based outpatient programs. Results showed no evidence that youth who received MET/CBT5 would have fared better with respect to emotional problems, the likelihood of being institutionalized, or achieving a "recovery" status at 12 months had they received community-based treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The community-based treatments used in this study have not been assessed relative to "treatment as usual" but were selected as "exemplary" models of adolescent treatment. There is no evidence in this study that these exemplary programs yielded superior 12-month outcomes for the treatment of adolescents with marijuana problems; youth receiving MET/CBT5 experienced greater reductions in substance use and illegal activities. Thus, MET/CBT5 may be a promising treatment for community-based providers to adopt to treat these clients.
Authors: Michael T French; M Christopher Roebuck; Michael L Dennis; Guy Diamond; Susan H Godley; Frank Tims; Charles Webb; James M Herrell Journal: Addiction Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Guy Diamond; Susan H Godley; Howard A Liddle; Susan Sampl; Charles Webb; Frank M Tims; Robert Meyers Journal: Addiction Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Frank M Tims; Michael L Dennis; Nancy Hamilton; Betty J Buchan; Guy Diamond; Rod Funk; Laura B Brantley Journal: Addiction Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Michael Dennis; Janet C Titus; Guy Diamond; Jean Donaldson; Susan H Godley; Frank M Tims; Charles Webb; Yifrah Kaminer; Thomas Babor; M C Roebuck; Mark D Godley; Nancy Hamilton; Howard Liddle; Christy K Scott Journal: Addiction Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Susan H Godley; Bryan R Garner; Lora L Passetti; Rodney R Funk; Michael L Dennis; Mark D Godley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ziva D Cooper; Richard W Foltin; Carl L Hart; Suzanne K Vosburg; Sandra D Comer; Margaret Haney Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Beth Ann Griffin; Lynsay Ayer; Joseph Pane; Brian Vegetabile; Lane Burgette; Daniel McCaffrey; Donna L Coffman; Matthew Cefalu; Rod Funk; Mark D Godley Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Sarah B Hunter; Rajeev Ramchand; Beth Ann Griffin; Marika J Suttorp; Daniel McCaffrey; Andrew Morral Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2011-12-29
Authors: Aaron Hogue; Molly Bobek; Sarah Dauber; Craig E Henderson; Bryce D McLeod; Michael A Southam-Gerow Journal: J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse Date: 2017-05-23
Authors: Rajeev Ramchand; Beth Ann Griffin; Sarah B Hunter; Marika Suttorp Booth; Daniel F McCaffrey Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel McCaffrey; Rajeev Ramchand; Sarah B Hunter; Marika Suttorp Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2012-06-01