Choosing a control group in effectiveness trials of behavioral drug abuse treatments

Maryhaven Research Institute, Maryhaven, Columbus, OH 43207, USA.
Journal of substance abuse treatment (Impact Factor: 2.9). 07/2009; 37(4):388-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.05.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Effectiveness trials are an important step in the scientific process of developing and evaluating behavioral treatments. The focus on effectiveness research presents a different set of requirements on the research design when compared with efficacy studies. The choice of a control condition has many implications for a clinical trial's internal and external validity. The purpose of this article was to provide a discussion of the issues involved in choosing a control group for effectiveness trials of behavioral interventions in substance abuse treatment. The authors provide a description of four trial designs and a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computer-assisted interventions hold the promise of minimizing two problems that are ubiquitous in substance abuse treatment: the lack of ready access to treatment and the challenges to providing empirically-supported treatments. Reviews of research on computer-assisted treatments for mental health and substance abuse report promising findings, but study quality and methodological limitations remain an issue. In addition, relatively few computer-assisted treatments have been tested among illicit substance users. This manuscript describes the methodological considerations of a multi-site effectiveness trial conducted within the National Institute on Drug Abuse's (NIDA's) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). The study is evaluating a web-based version of the Community Reinforcement Approach, in addition to prize-based contingency management, among 500 participants enrolled in 10 outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Several potential effectiveness trial designs were considered and the rationale for the choice of design in this study is described. The study uses a randomized controlled design (with independent treatment arm allocation), intention-to-treat primary outcome analysis, biological markers for the primary outcome of abstinence, long-term follow-up assessments, precise measurement of intervention dose, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Input from community providers during protocol development highlighted potential concerns and helped to address issues of practicality and feasibility. Collaboration between providers and investigators supports the utility of infrastructures that enhance research partnerships to facilitate effectiveness trials and dissemination of promising, technologically innovative treatments. Outcomes from this study will further the empirical knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted treatment in clinical treatment settings.
    Contemporary clinical trials 11/2011; 33(2):386-95. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2011.11.001 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new skin and needle hygiene intervention, designed to reduce high-risk injection practices associated with bacterial and viral infections, was tested in a pilot, randomized controlled trial. Participants included 48 active heroin injectors recruited through street outreach and randomized to either a 2-session intervention or an assessment-only condition (AO) and followed up for 6 months. The primary outcome was skin- and needle-cleaning behavioral skills measured by videotaped demonstration. Secondary outcomes were high-risk injection practices, intramuscular injection, and bacterial infections. Intervention participants had greater improvements on the skin (d = 1.00) and needle-cleaning demonstrations (d = .52) and larger reductions in high-risk injection practices (d = .32) and intramuscular injection (d = .29), with a lower incidence rate of bacterial infections (hazard ratio = .80), at 6 months compared with AO. The new intervention appears feasible and promising as a brief intervention to reduce bacterial and viral risks associated with drug injection.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 02/2012; 43(3):313-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.01.003 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recruitment and retention in randomized clinical trials are difficult in general and particularly so in trials of substance abuse treatments. Understanding trial design characteristics that could affect recruitment and retention rates would help in the design of future trials. To test whether any of the following factors are associated with recruitment or retention: type of intervention, type of therapy, duration of treatment, total duration of trial, number of treatment sessions, number of follow-up visits, number of primary assessments, timing of primary assessments, number of case report form (CRF) pages at baseline, and number of CRF pages for the entire trial. Recruitment and retention data from 24 Clinical Trials Network (CTN) trials conducted and completed between 2001 and 2010 were analyzed using single-factor analysis of variance and single-predictor regression methods to test their association with trial design characteristics. Almost all of the analyses performed did not show statistically significant patterns between recruitment and retention rates and the trial design characteristics considered. In CTN trials, the relationship between assessment burden on participants and length of trial, on the one hand, and recruitment and retention, on the other, is not as strong and direct as expected. Other factors must impinge on the conduct of the trial to influence trial participation. Researchers may deem slightly more justifiable to permit inclusion of some of the design features that previously were assumed to have a strong, negative influence on recruitment and retention, and should consider other strategies that may have a stronger, more direct effect on trial participation.
    The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 09/2011; 37(5):426-33. DOI:10.3109/00952990.2011.596972 · 1.47 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014