0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Alcohol Abuse:  A Meta-analytic Review FREE

Stephen J. Tripodi, PhD; Kimberly Bender, PhD; Christy Litschge, MSW; Michael G. Vaughn, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Florida State University, Tallahassee (Dr Tripodi); University of Denver, Denver, Colorado (Dr Bender); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Ms Litschge); and Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri (Dr Vaughn).


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(1):85-91. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.235.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To assess the effectiveness of substance abuse interventions for their ability to reduce adolescent alcohol use.

Data Sources  MEDLINE; PsycINFO; ERIC; Wilson Social Science Abstracts; Criminal Justice Abstracts; Social Work Abstracts; Social Science Citation Index; Dissertations Abstracts International; National Criminal Justice Research Service; Social, Psychological, Criminological, Educational Trials Register; and the PsiTri databases from 1960 through 2008.

Study Selection  Of 64 titles and abstracts identified, 16 studies and 26 outcomes constituted the sample. The researchers calculated Hedges g effect sizes and used a random-effects model to calculate adjusted pooled effect sizes. Heterogeneity was explored using stratified analyses.

Main Exposure  Completion of a substance abuse intervention that aimed to reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption.

Main Outcome Measures  Abstinence, frequency of alcohol use, and quantity of alcohol use measured between 1 month and 1 year upon completion of treatment.

Results  Pooled effects of standardized mean differences indicate that interventions significantly reduce adolescent alcohol use (Hedges g = −0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.83 to −0.40). Stratified analyses revealed larger effects for individual treatment (Hedges g = −0.75; 95% CI, −1.05 to −0.40) compared with family-based treatments (Hedges g = −0.46; 95% CI, −0.66 to −0.26).

Conclusions  Treatments for adolescent substance abuse appear to be effective in reducing alcohol use. Individual-only interventions had larger effect sizes than family-based interventions and effect sizes decreased as length of follow-up increased. Furthermore, behavior-oriented treatments demonstrated promise in attaining long-term effects.

Figures in this Article

Alcohol use during adolescence remains a significant concern. Alcohol is the most frequently used substance among adolescents.1,2 Results from the Monitoring the Future national study indicate that 16% of eighth graders report having had a drink within the past 30 days, as did 33% of 10th and 44% of 12th graders.2 Because alcohol is easily accessible and lacks the same legal consequences of more illicit substances, its use begins at young ages, with just under 50% of eighth graders having used alcohol,2 initiating use at an average age of 14 years.3 Misuse of alcohol also occurs at high frequencies, with over half of 12th graders reporting ever having been drunk, 30% reporting binge drinking, and 3% reporting daily drinking.2,4,5

Adolescent alcohol use disorders are associated with serious psychosocial problems. Youth dependent on alcohol report increased rates of comorbid mental health disorders6 and neurocognitive deficits.7 They also demonstrate reduced motivation in regard to academic success.8 Furthermore, alcohol misuse in adolescence places youth at increased risk for subsequent adult alcohol abuse and its related problems.9

Considering the serious consequences associated with adolescent alcohol use, several treatments have been developed to reduce youths' alcohol consumption and related behavioral problems. Interventions to reduce alcohol use are provided in 2 primary formats with treatment provided either directly to the adolescent or in the context of his or her family. Common individual treatments use behavioral interventions to identify internal and external stimuli that trigger alcohol use and then implement skills training to teach refusal skills, relaxation techniques, and behavioral management techniques.5,10 Often, cognitively oriented therapies will additionally focus on distorted thoughts and maladaptive perceptions that lead to problematic behaviors.11 Motivational interviewing, a third common treatment approach, helps clients recognize their problem behavior and build internal motivation toward behavioral change.12 According to Thatcher and Clark,5 motivational interviewing may be especially pertinent for adolescents because they are often coerced into treatment and are often unwilling to acknowledge their problematic behaviors. Several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated reductions in adolescent alcohol use across individual intervention approaches.8,13

Most research on reducing adolescents' substance use has evaluated family-based interventions.5 Because family dynamics are an integral component in the lives of adolescents, many consider the family to be an essential consideration when treating substance-abusing adolescents.14 The 4 most common family-based programs that aim to reduce substance use are multisystemic therapy, integrated family and cognitive behavioral therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and brief strategic family therapy. Each of these treatments uses a multisystem approach in which the intervention not only attempts to change youth behavior but also to reduce risk factors for substance use present in the youth's family or other social systems (school, peers, or community). Several trials of family-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing alcohol use.1519

With multiple studies evaluating the effects of interventions to reduce adolescent alcohol use, synthesis across studies is necessary to gain a clear picture of overall effects. Several articles have synthesized related topics. For example, there are currently published meta-analyses and systematic reviews that assess the effectiveness of various substance abuse interventions for adults,20 preventive interventions for adolescent substance use,21 and brief interventions for reducing substance use.22 Moreover, Vaughn and Howard23 conducted a synthesis for controlled evaluations of adolescent substance abuse treatment. To date, however, a meta-analysis of outcomes for interventions to reduce alcohol use among adolescents does not exist. Consequently, a primary purpose of this article is to assess the effectiveness of individual- and family-based interventions for their ability to reduce adolescent alcohol use.

Additionally, questions remain regarding whether individual counseling or family-based treatments are more effective at reducing alcohol use. In a meta-analysis on drug abuse outcomes, Stanton and Shadish24 found that family treatment was superior to individual counseling; however, this study was conducted more than 12 years ago and included both adolescents and adults seeking treatment for substance abuse. Thus, along with determining the effects of treatments to reduce adolescent alcohol use, a secondary aim of the current study is to compare the effects of individual treatments with family-based treatment approaches.

DATA SOURCES AND SEARCHES

We followed standardized protocols for the identification, acquisition, coding, and analysis of studies of treatment effects on alcohol use outcomes consistent with the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement.25 The search objective was to identify all studies that involved a comparison with a focal treatment targeting alcohol use outcomes for adolescent clients between the ages of 12 and 19 years for a 48-year span (between 1960 and 2008). This time frame was selected to capture all potential studies. Databases systematically searched included MEDLINE; PsycINFO; ERIC; Wilson Social Science Abstracts; Criminal Justice Abstracts; Social Work Abstracts; Social Science Citation Index; Dissertation Abstracts International; National Criminal Justice Research Service; Social, Psychological, Criminological, Educational Trials Register; and the PsiTri database of randomized and controlled trials in mental health. Supplemental searches of alcohol and drug treatment Web sites, such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute at the University of Washington, and the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions at the University of New Mexico, were also searched to augment formal systematic searches. Manual searches of the reference sections of identified studies, reference sections of recent pertinent books, and government documents were also conducted. Keyword searches included the following descriptors entered singularly and in Boolean format with and or or: adolescent, alcohol, alcohol abuse, ethanol, alcohol dependence, substance abuse, substance use disorders, psychosocial interventions, psychosocial treatments, youth, behavioral interventions, behavioral treatments, psychotherapy, randomized controlled trials, and controlled clinical trials. If a study appeared promising, we retrieved the full-text version. Following search descriptor refinements, duplicate citation removal, and step-by-step screening and filtering of articles vis-à-vis inclusion criteria, full-text articles were reexamined for relevance and final study selection.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria established a priori. To be included, studies must have (1) tested an intervention to reduce alcohol use (excluding prevention studies, observational studies, and literature review/conceptual articles); (2) targeted adolescents (aged 12-19 years), unless studies of mixed groups of adolescents and adults could allow specific determinations as to the effectiveness of treatment outcomes for adolescent subjects; (3) examined quantitative alcohol use treatment outcomes, such as alcohol abstinence, frequency of drinking, and quantity of drinking (as opposed to compliance, safety, other problem behaviors, or prevention-only outcomes); and (4) used a contrast condition for comparison (ie, comparison group that included a control group, wait-list control, or contrasting treatment group as part of the design (excluding 1 group prepost design or case studies). (5) Investigations using pharmacological therapies were included only if drugs were administered as part of an integrated treatment protocol combining medications with 1 or more psychosocial interventions. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses flowchart25 illustrates the study screening process (Figure).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Study screening process flowchart.

Graphic Jump Location
DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Study authors independently recorded study characteristics such as citation information, methodological attributes, outcome variable information, measures, key findings, intervention description, as well as other pertinent information such as sample size onto an intervention coding form. Following this initial coding procedure, a second coder double-coded the information for all studies. Two dyads of authors independently coded studies, and interrater agreement assessment showed minimal coding error for dyad 1 (κ = 0.76) and dyad 2 (κ = 0.78). Reitzel and Carbonell26 suggest that the κ statistic is a superior calculation because it adjusts for the proportion of the rater's agreement that could occur between raters owing to chance. Study authors met to evaluate any remaining discrepant codes and a consensus was achieved via discussion.

ANALYSIS OF METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

Each study was rated with regard to methodological characteristics using an adapted version of the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. This scale was developed by Miller et al27 and the Mesa Grande project evaluating alcohol dependence treatment outcome studies28,29 and has been used in other systematic reviews23,30 and meta-analyses.31 Each study was evaluated across 13 methodological attributes. The number of points a study could garner ranged from 1 (extremely poor quality) to 16 (exceptionally high quality).

DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

We combined data from multiple intervention studies targeting alcohol use outcomes. Alcohol use outcomes were measured as reductions in the frequency of alcohol use (ie, drinking days and number of drinks consumed) assessed by structured interviews. We used the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0.32 For intervention studies with sufficient statistical information, this program calculates the standardized mean difference effect size. We used the Hedges adjusted g for effect sizes to correct for sample size bias.33,34 For treatment/comparison design studies, the effect size was calculated as the difference between the intervention group's mean posttest score and the comparison group's mean posttest score divided by the pooled standard deviation and adjusted for sample size. We examined and corrected extreme values using winsorizing techniques.35 This process results in identifying effects greater than 2 SDs from the mean and assigning these effects a value equivalent to 2 SDs. Owing to dispersion based on clinical inference and supported by statistically significant Q values and relatively high τ2 and I2 values, we could not assume the true effect was identical across studies and subsequently used a random-effects model over a fixed-effects model to estimate pooled effects. The random-effects model takes into account sources of variation within and between studies.36 Fixed effects often inflate effect size precision owing to narrower confidence intervals (CIs) compared with random-effects models.37 As such, random-effects models provide a more conservative estimate. We also tested pooled effects using a mixed-effects model, which did not assume common variance among studies across subgroups, but combined subgroups using a fixed effect.38 Heterogeneity was explored using stratified analyses. Funnel plots and associated statistics were examined to evaluate publication bias. A fail-safe population size was computed to assess the file drawer problem inherent in meta-analyses (ie, how many studies with null or differential effect are necessary to invalidate study results).

SEARCH RESULTS

The Figure illustrates the results of the study screening process. Sixty-four potentially relevant studies were initially identified. After literature review articles, case studies, and other article formats not meeting search criteria were removed, 31 publications remained. Articles were reexamined for relevance and design qualifications for final study selection. Findings from 16 investigations published between 1994 and 2008 constituted the final study sample.

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

As shown in Table 1, all 16 of the studies contained in this analysis were journal article publications. Nearly 40% were published between 2006 and 2008. More than half (57%) were published between 2000 and 2004, while less than 10% predate 1999. The entire sample of youth participants within this meta-analysis was younger than 19 years, and all studies were carried out within the United States. Most (62%) of the studies tested individual-based therapies and approximately one-third tested family therapies. With regard to study design, 14 (87.5%) used experimental designs. Only 2 studies were quasi-experimental. Nearly all (94%) of the studies were conducted at single-site locations, were considered replicable, and reported baseline participant characteristics. The vast majority (94%) of the studies reported that their interventions were standardized by a manual or required the specific training of research staff. Most studies (69%) reported using objective verification when collecting data and 69% reported using collateral verification. Most (56%) studies had a follow-up length from 6 to 11 months. Assessment of follow-up times revealed that only 38% of the studies were able to maintain 85% to 100% of their original study participants. Although only 44% of studies reported having lower than 85% follow-up rates, a large majority (88%) enumerated their participants who had dropped out of the study. One study39 did not report follow-up details. Table 2 describes design and treatment information for each included study.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Design and Treatment Characteristics of Included Studies
OVERALL COMPARISONS OF TREATMENT EFFECTS

As shown in Table 3, using the random-effects model, the adjusted pooled effect size (Hedges g) was −0.62 (95% CI, −0.83 to −0.40). All tested interventions yielded reductions in alcohol use. The range of standardized effects for reducing alcohol use was substantial, ranging from −0.09 (95% CI, −0.45 to 0.27) for brief motivational interviewing8 to −1.991 (95% CI, −2.37 to −1.61) for cognitive-behavioral therapy integrated with the 12-step approach.46 In addition to cognitive-behavioral therapy with the 12-step approach, brief motivational interviewing,9 active aftercare,43 multidimensional family therapy,17 and brief intervention with adolescent and parent19 yielded large (>0.80) effects. Intervention effects tended to wane over time. Although most studies did not include such long-term assessments of intervention results (≥12 months), those studies that did revealed enduring effects for behavioral treatment compared with supportive counseling (Hedges g = −0.66; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.34), multidimensional family treatment compared with family education (Hedges g = −0.81; 95% CI, −1.29 to −0.34), and multidimensional family therapy compared with group therapy (Hedges g = −0.57; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.07).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Standardized Effects of Intervention Studies Targeting Adolescent Alcohol Use (n = 16)
STRATIFIED AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Stratified analyses by individual vs family intervention classifications showed that pooled effects revealed somewhat larger effects for individual interventions (Hedges g = −0.75; 95% CI, −1.10 to −0.40) compared with family-based interventions (Hedges g = −0.46; 95% CI, −0.66 to −0.26). Moreover, pooled effects for stratified analyses by follow-up length revealed larger effect sizes for outcomes with follow-up data of 6 months or less (Hedges g = −0.66; 95% CI, −0.95 to −0.38) compared with follow-up data of longer than 6 months (Hedges g = −0.50; 95% CI, −0.68 to −0.32). Results of stratified analyses are shown in Table 3. We used Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method47 to examine and impute studies based on any asymmetric pattern, and results showed a negligible change in overall pooled effects based on imputation of 3 studies (increase of 0.04 in Hedges g), suggesting that publication bias is minimal. A fail-safe population was also computed to address the file drawer problem, and results showed that 1053 null studies would be necessary to change the α to a nonsignificant value. Although relatively low in power, rank correlation and the Egger regression intercept were both nonsignificant, also suggesting a lack of publication bias.

This meta-analysis finds that numerous treatments for adolescents contribute to the reduction of alcohol use over time. When synthesizing all 16 studies and 26 outcomes, the overall pooled effect size is −0.62 (P < .001), indicating treatment has a medium effect on the reduction of alcohol use for adolescents according to Cohen48 heuristics (<0.20 = small, 0.50 = moderate, and >0.80 = large).

Intervention approaches varied in their effects on alcohol reduction. Interventions with large effect sizes (>0.80) include brief motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral therapy with 12 steps, cognitive-behavioral therapy with aftercare, multidimensional family therapy, brief interventions with the adolescent, and brief interventions with the adolescent and a parent. Interventions with medium effect sizes include integrated family and cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral treatment, triple modality social learning, multidimensional family therapy, and brief interventions only with the adolescent. The outcomes for multisystemic therapy were statistically significant, yet this treatment demonstrated a relatively small effect on the reduction of alcohol use.

Interestingly, 3 of the 5 interventions that produced large effect sizes included brief interventions. This is in contrast to Tait and Hulse’s22 previous systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions for substance-using adolescents; they found that, though statistically significant, the effect size for alcohol interventions was small, with a Hedges g effect size of 0.27. Considering the emergence of brief interventions primarily owing to managed care, the larger effect sizes found in this review indicate that more recent tests of brief interventions are yielding stronger reductions in alcohol use. However, research on brief interventions is limited, and more research is needed to assess its effectiveness with alcohol reduction for adolescents and to understand the mechanisms that produce changes.

Surprisingly, individual-only interventions had larger effect sizes (g = −0.75) than family-based interventions (g = −0.46). These findings contrast previous work that finds family-based interventions to be the ideal mode of treatment for adolescents with alcohol use disorders.5,14,49 Unequivocal claims that individual-based treatment is more effective than family-based treatment are not, however, warranted, as potentially confounding factors were not controlled for in stratified analyses. Furthermore, both types of treatment were statistically significant (P < .001) and many of the specific interventions for both modalities contained large effect sizes. Two of the family-based interventions had large effect sizes17,19 as did 3 of the individual counseling interventions.9,19,43 In fact, Winters and Leitten19 assessed the effectiveness of brief interventions with solely the adolescent and a brief intervention with the adolescent and 1 parent and found that the inclusion of a parent had a much larger effect size (g = −1.71). Nevertheless, concerning the studies included in this meta-analysis, individual counseling had a larger influence on the reduction of alcohol use for adolescents with alcohol use disorders than family-based interventions. The differences between individual- and family-based interventions found in the study, however, may lack reliability because of the small number of studies that satisfied inclusion criteria, increasing the chances that there are alternative explanations for the differences in effect sizes. Thus, this comparison should be further studied as more research is conducted and disseminated.

Effect sizes decreased with length of follow-up. The time between the end of the intervention and follow-up data collection has an important influence on effect size when synthesizing the outcomes. While it is possible that treatment effects consolidate over time, making relapse less likely, this study finds the contrary: an increased chance that treatment participants returned to preintervention levels of drinking when there was a longer follow-up period. Reduced effects of interventions over time may occur as youths reduce how often they use skills developed in treatment, and other influences such as deviant peer groups may have greater influence over youth problem behavior postintervention. Nonetheless, the following interventions resulted in significant reductions in alcohol use at 12 months posttreatment: behavioral treatment13 and multidimensional family treatment.17 Considering that these interventions focus on altering maladaptive behaviors, it appears that behavior-based treatment, whether individual- or family-based, is beneficial in attaining long-term change.

Study conclusions should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, inclusion criteria were purposely narrow in an attempt to reduce heterogeneity among studies; however, specific alcohol use outcomes did differ slightly, increasing the chances of construct validity invariance.50 Outcomes examined included alcohol use, alcohol use frequency, days of alcohol use, quantity of alcohol used, and past month alcohol use. While similar, results would be considered more valid if the outcomes were identical. Follow-up lengths also differed and, as previously discussed, greater follow-up periods are associated with smaller effect sizes because the treatment participant has more opportunities to increase frequency and quantity of alcohol use over time. While stratified analyses comparing follow-up periods of more than and less than 6 months revealed stronger effect sizes for follow-up periods of less than 6 months, our overall effect sizes represent a synthesis of different follow-up periods. Finally, we did not stratify results based on different types of control group, preventing us from comparing effect sizes for standard treatment vs waiting list control groups. Although all but 2 of the studies were randomized controlled trials, we cannot be assured that type of control group did not influence the magnitude of the effects-size results.

To our knowledge, this is the first known meta-analysis to examine interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption in adolescents. As the number of rigorously designed alcohol intervention studies for adolescents increases, future meta-analyses should synthesize studies with greater precision by intervention. Such analyses would help identify with more certainty interventions that are most effective in reducing adolescent alcohol use.

Correspondence: Stephen J. Tripodi, PhD, College of Social Work, Florida State University, 296 Champions Way, University Center Bldg C, Tallahassee, FL 32306 (stripodi@fsu.edu).

Accepted for Publication: May 6, 2009.

Author Contributions: Dr Tripodi has had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Vaughn. Acquisition of data: Tripodi, Bender, Litschge, and Vaughn. Analysis and interpretation of data: Tripodi, Bender, and Vaughn. Drafting of the manuscript: Tripodi, Bender, Litschge, and Vaughn. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Tripodi, Bender, and Vaughn. Statistical analysis: Vaughn. Obtained funding: Vaughn.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a grant from the Donald D. Hammill Foundation (Dr Vaughn).

Park  MJBreland  D Alcohol and cigarette use among adolescents and young adult males. Am J Men's Health 2007;1339- 346
Link to Article
Johnston  LDO’Malley  PMBachman  JGSchulenberg  JE Monitoring the Future national results on adolescents drug use: overview of key finding, 2007 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 08-6418].  Bethesda, MD National Institute on Drug Abuse2008;
Newes-Adeyi  GChen  CMWilliams  GDFaden  VB Trends in underage drinking in the United States, 1991–2003 [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism surveillance report No. 74].  Bethesda, MD National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism2005;
Faden  VBFay  MP Trends in drinking among Americans age 18 and younger: 1975-2002. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004;28 (9) 1388- 1395
PubMed Link to Article
Thatcher  DLClark  DB Adolescent alcohol abuse and dependence: development, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. Curr Psychiatry Rev 2006;2159- 177
Link to Article
Rowe  CLLiddle  HAGreenbaum  PEHenderson  CE Impact of psychiatric comorbidity on treatment of adolescent drug abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004;26 (2) 129- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Tapert  SFBrown  SAMyers  MGGranholm  E The role of neurocognitive abilities in coping with adolescent relapse to alcohol and drug use. J Stud Alcohol 1999;60 (4) 500- 508
PubMed
Baer  JSGarrett  SBBeadnell  BWells  EAPeterson  P Brief motivational intervention with homeless adolescents: evaluating effects on substance use and service utilization. Psychol Addict Behav 2007;21 (4) 582- 586
PubMed Link to Article
D’Amico  EJMiles  JVStern  SAMeredith  LS Brief motivational interviewing for teens at risk of substance use consequences: a randomized pilot study in a primary care clinic. J Subst Abuse Treat 2008;35 (1) 53- 61
PubMed Link to Article
Deas  DThomas  S Comorbid psychiatric factors contributing to adolescent alcohol and other drug use. Alcohol Res Health 2002;26 (2) 116- 121
Kaminer  YBurleson  JABlitz  CSussman  JRounsaville  BJ Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: a pilot study. J Nerv Ment Dis 1998;186 (11) 684- 690
PubMed Link to Article
Tevyaw  TOMonti  PM Motivational enhancement and other brief interventions for adolescent substance abuse: foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction 2004;99 ((suppl 2)) 63- 75
PubMed Link to Article
Azrin  NHMcMahon  PTDonohue  B  et al.  Behavior therapy for drug abuse: a controlled treatment outcome study. Behav Res Ther 1994;32 (8) 857- 866
PubMed Link to Article
Bukstein  OAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36 (10) ((suppl)) 140S- 156S
PubMed Link to Article
Henggeler  SWPickrel  SGBrondino  MJ Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and dependent delinquents: outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Ment Health Serv Res 1999;1171- 184
Link to Article
Latimer  WWWinters  KCD'Zurilla  TNichols  M Integrated family and cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent substance abusers: a Stage I efficacy study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;71 (3) 303- 317
PubMed Link to Article
Liddle  HADakof  GAParker  KDiamond  GSBarrett  KTejeda  M Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent drug abuse: results of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2001;27 (4) 651- 688
PubMed Link to Article
Liddle  HADakof  GATurner  RMHenderson  CEGreenbaum  PE Treating adolescent drug abuse: a randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction 2008;103 (10) 1660- 1670
PubMed Link to Article
Winters  KCLeitten  W Brief intervention for drug-abusing adolescents in a school setting. Psychol Addict Behav 2007;21 (2) 249- 254
PubMed Link to Article
Prendergast  MLPodus  DChang  EUrada  D The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparing group studies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;67 (1) 53- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Tobler  NSRoona  MROchshorn  PMarshall  DGStreke  AVStackpole  KM School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. J Prim Prev 2000;20 (4) 275- 336
Link to Article
Tait  RJHulse  GK A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22 (3) 337- 346
PubMed Link to Article
Vaughn  MGHoward  MO Adolescent substance abuse treatment: a synthesis of controlled evaluations. Res Soc Work Pract 2004;14 (5) 325- 335
Link to Article
Stanton  MDShadish  WR Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for drug abuse: a meta-analysis and review of the controlled comparative studies. Psychol Bull 1997;122 (2) 170- 191
PubMed Link to Article
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Reitzel  LRCarbonell  JL The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by recidivism: a meta-analysis. Sex Abuse 2006;18 (4) 401- 421
PubMed
Miller  WRBrown  JMSimpson  TL  et al.  What works? a methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature. Hester  RKMiller  WRHandbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA Allyn & Bacon1995;12- 44
Miller  WRAndrews  NRWilbourne  PBennett  ME A wealth of alternatives: Effective treatments for alcohol problems. Miller  WRHeather  NTreating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change. 2nd ed. New York, NY Plenum1998;203- 216
Miller  WRWilbourne  PL Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatment for alcohol use disorders. Addiction 2002;97 (3) 265- 277
PubMed Link to Article
Vaughn  MGHoward  MO Integrated psychosocial and opioid antagonist treatment for alcohol dependence: a systematic review of controlled evaluations. Soc Work Res 2004;28 (1) 41- 53
Link to Article
Apodaca  TRMiller  WR A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bibliotherapy for alcohol problems. J Clin Psychol 2003;59 (3) 289- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Borenstein  MHedges  LHiggins  JRothstein  H Comprehensive Meta Analysis [computer program]. Version 2. Englewood, NJ Biostat2005;
Deeks  JJAltman  DGBradbrun  MJ Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Egger  MDavey  Smith GAltman  DGSystematic Reviews in Health Care Meta-analysis in Context. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;285- 312
Rosenthal  R Parametric measures of effect size. Cooper  HHedges  LVThe Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY Russell Sage Foundation1994;231- 244
Lipsey  MWWilson  DB Practice Meta-analysis.  Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications2001;
Borenstein  MHedges  LRothstein  H Meta-analysis: fixed versus random effects. http://www.meta-analysis.com. 2007. Accessed January 30, 2009
Hunter  JESchmidt  FL Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int J Sel Assess 2000;8275- 292
Link to Article
Manager  R RevMan [computer program]. Version 5.0. Copenhagen, Denmark The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration2008;
Friedman  ASTerras  AGlassman  K Multimodel substance use intervention program for male delinquents. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse 2002;11 (4) 43- 65
Link to Article
Godley  MDGodley  SHDennis  MLFunk  RPassetti  LL Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002;23 (1) 21- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Godley  MDGodley  SHDennis  MLFunk  RPassetti  LL The effect of assertive continuing care on continuing care linkage, adherence and abstinence following residential treatment for adolescents with substance use disorders. Addiction 2007;102 (1) 81- 93
PubMed Link to Article
Kaminer  YBurleson  JA Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: 15-month follow-up of a pilot study. Am J Addict 1999;8 (2) 114- 119
PubMed Link to Article
Kaminer  YBurleson  JABurke  RH Efficacy of outpatient aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: a randomized controlled study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008;47 (12) 1405- 1412
PubMed Link to Article
McGillicuddy  NBRychtarik  RGDuquette  JAMorsheimer  ET Development of a skill training program for parents of substance-abusing adolescents. J Subst Abuse Treat 2001;20 (1) 59- 68
PubMed Link to Article
Santisteban  DACoatsworth  JDPerez-Vidal  A  et al.  Efficacy of brief strategic family therapy in modifying Hispanic adolescent behavior problems and substance use. J Fam Psychol 2003;17 (1) 121- 133
Link to Article
Tomlinson  KLBrown  SAAbrantes  A Psychiatric comorbidity and substance use treatment outcomes of adolescents. Psychol Addict Behav 2004;18 (2) 160- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Duval  STweedie  RL Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56 (2) 455- 463
PubMed Link to Article
Cohen  J Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum1988;
Clark  DBThatcher  DLMaisto  SA Adolescent neglect and alcohol disorders in two-parent families. Child Maltreat 2004;9 (4) 357- 370
PubMed Link to Article
Nugent  WR Construct validity invariance and discrepancies in meta-analytic effect sizes based on different measures: a simulation study. Educ Psychol Meas 2009;69 (1) 62- 78
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Study screening process flowchart.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Standardized Effects of Intervention Studies Targeting Adolescent Alcohol Use (n = 16)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Design and Treatment Characteristics of Included Studies
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

References

Park  MJBreland  D Alcohol and cigarette use among adolescents and young adult males. Am J Men's Health 2007;1339- 346
Link to Article
Johnston  LDO’Malley  PMBachman  JGSchulenberg  JE Monitoring the Future national results on adolescents drug use: overview of key finding, 2007 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 08-6418].  Bethesda, MD National Institute on Drug Abuse2008;
Newes-Adeyi  GChen  CMWilliams  GDFaden  VB Trends in underage drinking in the United States, 1991–2003 [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism surveillance report No. 74].  Bethesda, MD National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism2005;
Faden  VBFay  MP Trends in drinking among Americans age 18 and younger: 1975-2002. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004;28 (9) 1388- 1395
PubMed Link to Article
Thatcher  DLClark  DB Adolescent alcohol abuse and dependence: development, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. Curr Psychiatry Rev 2006;2159- 177
Link to Article
Rowe  CLLiddle  HAGreenbaum  PEHenderson  CE Impact of psychiatric comorbidity on treatment of adolescent drug abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat 2004;26 (2) 129- 140
PubMed Link to Article
Tapert  SFBrown  SAMyers  MGGranholm  E The role of neurocognitive abilities in coping with adolescent relapse to alcohol and drug use. J Stud Alcohol 1999;60 (4) 500- 508
PubMed
Baer  JSGarrett  SBBeadnell  BWells  EAPeterson  P Brief motivational intervention with homeless adolescents: evaluating effects on substance use and service utilization. Psychol Addict Behav 2007;21 (4) 582- 586
PubMed Link to Article
D’Amico  EJMiles  JVStern  SAMeredith  LS Brief motivational interviewing for teens at risk of substance use consequences: a randomized pilot study in a primary care clinic. J Subst Abuse Treat 2008;35 (1) 53- 61
PubMed Link to Article
Deas  DThomas  S Comorbid psychiatric factors contributing to adolescent alcohol and other drug use. Alcohol Res Health 2002;26 (2) 116- 121
Kaminer  YBurleson  JABlitz  CSussman  JRounsaville  BJ Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: a pilot study. J Nerv Ment Dis 1998;186 (11) 684- 690
PubMed Link to Article
Tevyaw  TOMonti  PM Motivational enhancement and other brief interventions for adolescent substance abuse: foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction 2004;99 ((suppl 2)) 63- 75
PubMed Link to Article
Azrin  NHMcMahon  PTDonohue  B  et al.  Behavior therapy for drug abuse: a controlled treatment outcome study. Behav Res Ther 1994;32 (8) 857- 866
PubMed Link to Article
Bukstein  OAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36 (10) ((suppl)) 140S- 156S
PubMed Link to Article
Henggeler  SWPickrel  SGBrondino  MJ Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and dependent delinquents: outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Ment Health Serv Res 1999;1171- 184
Link to Article
Latimer  WWWinters  KCD'Zurilla  TNichols  M Integrated family and cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent substance abusers: a Stage I efficacy study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;71 (3) 303- 317
PubMed Link to Article
Liddle  HADakof  GAParker  KDiamond  GSBarrett  KTejeda  M Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent drug abuse: results of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2001;27 (4) 651- 688
PubMed Link to Article
Liddle  HADakof  GATurner  RMHenderson  CEGreenbaum  PE Treating adolescent drug abuse: a randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction 2008;103 (10) 1660- 1670
PubMed Link to Article
Winters  KCLeitten  W Brief intervention for drug-abusing adolescents in a school setting. Psychol Addict Behav 2007;21 (2) 249- 254
PubMed Link to Article
Prendergast  MLPodus  DChang  EUrada  D The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparing group studies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;67 (1) 53- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Tobler  NSRoona  MROchshorn  PMarshall  DGStreke  AVStackpole  KM School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. J Prim Prev 2000;20 (4) 275- 336
Link to Article
Tait  RJHulse  GK A systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions with substance using adolescents. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22 (3) 337- 346
PubMed Link to Article
Vaughn  MGHoward  MO Adolescent substance abuse treatment: a synthesis of controlled evaluations. Res Soc Work Pract 2004;14 (5) 325- 335
Link to Article
Stanton  MDShadish  WR Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for drug abuse: a meta-analysis and review of the controlled comparative studies. Psychol Bull 1997;122 (2) 170- 191
PubMed Link to Article
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Reitzel  LRCarbonell  JL The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by recidivism: a meta-analysis. Sex Abuse 2006;18 (4) 401- 421
PubMed
Miller  WRBrown  JMSimpson  TL  et al.  What works? a methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature. Hester  RKMiller  WRHandbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA Allyn & Bacon1995;12- 44
Miller  WRAndrews  NRWilbourne  PBennett  ME A wealth of alternatives: Effective treatments for alcohol problems. Miller  WRHeather  NTreating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change. 2nd ed. New York, NY Plenum1998;203- 216
Miller  WRWilbourne  PL Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatment for alcohol use disorders. Addiction 2002;97 (3) 265- 277
PubMed Link to Article
Vaughn  MGHoward  MO Integrated psychosocial and opioid antagonist treatment for alcohol dependence: a systematic review of controlled evaluations. Soc Work Res 2004;28 (1) 41- 53
Link to Article
Apodaca  TRMiller  WR A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bibliotherapy for alcohol problems. J Clin Psychol 2003;59 (3) 289- 304
PubMed Link to Article
Borenstein  MHedges  LHiggins  JRothstein  H Comprehensive Meta Analysis [computer program]. Version 2. Englewood, NJ Biostat2005;
Deeks  JJAltman  DGBradbrun  MJ Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Egger  MDavey  Smith GAltman  DGSystematic Reviews in Health Care Meta-analysis in Context. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;285- 312
Rosenthal  R Parametric measures of effect size. Cooper  HHedges  LVThe Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY Russell Sage Foundation1994;231- 244
Lipsey  MWWilson  DB Practice Meta-analysis.  Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications2001;
Borenstein  MHedges  LRothstein  H Meta-analysis: fixed versus random effects. http://www.meta-analysis.com. 2007. Accessed January 30, 2009
Hunter  JESchmidt  FL Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int J Sel Assess 2000;8275- 292
Link to Article
Manager  R RevMan [computer program]. Version 5.0. Copenhagen, Denmark The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration2008;
Friedman  ASTerras  AGlassman  K Multimodel substance use intervention program for male delinquents. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse 2002;11 (4) 43- 65
Link to Article
Godley  MDGodley  SHDennis  MLFunk  RPassetti  LL Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002;23 (1) 21- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Godley  MDGodley  SHDennis  MLFunk  RPassetti  LL The effect of assertive continuing care on continuing care linkage, adherence and abstinence following residential treatment for adolescents with substance use disorders. Addiction 2007;102 (1) 81- 93
PubMed Link to Article
Kaminer  YBurleson  JA Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: 15-month follow-up of a pilot study. Am J Addict 1999;8 (2) 114- 119
PubMed Link to Article
Kaminer  YBurleson  JABurke  RH Efficacy of outpatient aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: a randomized controlled study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008;47 (12) 1405- 1412
PubMed Link to Article
McGillicuddy  NBRychtarik  RGDuquette  JAMorsheimer  ET Development of a skill training program for parents of substance-abusing adolescents. J Subst Abuse Treat 2001;20 (1) 59- 68
PubMed Link to Article
Santisteban  DACoatsworth  JDPerez-Vidal  A  et al.  Efficacy of brief strategic family therapy in modifying Hispanic adolescent behavior problems and substance use. J Fam Psychol 2003;17 (1) 121- 133
Link to Article
Tomlinson  KLBrown  SAAbrantes  A Psychiatric comorbidity and substance use treatment outcomes of adolescents. Psychol Addict Behav 2004;18 (2) 160- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Duval  STweedie  RL Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56 (2) 455- 463
PubMed Link to Article
Cohen  J Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum1988;
Clark  DBThatcher  DLMaisto  SA Adolescent neglect and alcohol disorders in two-parent families. Child Maltreat 2004;9 (4) 357- 370
PubMed Link to Article
Nugent  WR Construct validity invariance and discrepancies in meta-analytic effect sizes based on different measures: a simulation study. Educ Psychol Meas 2009;69 (1) 62- 78
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 37

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Alcohol Abuse or Dependence

The Rational Clinical Examination
Make the Diagnosis: Alcohol Abuse