Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments for Adolescent Substance Abuse

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR 97403, USA.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.92). 02/2008; 37(1):238-61. DOI: 10.1080/15374410701820133
Source: PubMed


This review synthesized findings from 17 studies since 1998 regarding evaluation of outpatient treatments for adolescent substance abuse. These studies represented systematic design advances in adolescent clinical trial science. The research examined 46 different intervention conditions with a total sample of 2,307 adolescents. The sample included 7 individual cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) replications (n = 367), 13 group CBT replications (n = 771), 17 family therapy replications (n = 850) and 9 minimal treatment control conditions (n = 319). The total sample was composed of approximately 75% males, and the ethnic/racial distribution was approximately 45% White, 25% Hispanic, 25% African American, and 5% other groups. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate within-group effect sizes as well as differences between active treatment conditions and the minimal treatment control conditions. Methodological rigor of studies was classified using Nathan and Gorman (2002) criteria, and treatments were classified using criteria for well-established and probably efficacious interventions based on Chambless et al. (1996). Three treatment approaches, multidimensional family therapy, functional family therapy, and group CBT emerged as well-established models for substance abuse treatment. However, a number of other models are probably efficacious, and none of the treatment approaches appeared to be clearly superior to any others in terms of treatment effectiveness for adolescent substance abuse.

Download full-text


Available from: Charles Turner, Mar 20, 2015
  • Source
    • "Previous reviews ( Vaughn & Howard, 2004; Waldron & Turner, 2008) indicate that MDFT is a promising treatment for young drug abusers. However, the only meta-analysis thus far conducted (Waldron & Turner, 2008) included MDFT as part of a broad category of family therapy rather than including MDFT as a distinct treatment model. In contrast, this review examines the effect of MDFT and by aggregating results of all relevant studies on MDFT and so contributes to the knowledge about treatment of young drug abusers and their families. "

    Research on Social Work Practice 10/2015; DOI:10.1177/1049731515608241 · 1.53 Impact Factor
    • "Youth substance use remains a public health concern, with early use associated with increased risk for later abuse and use-related problems (e.g., Ellickson, Tucker, Klein, & Saner, 2004; Jacobsen et al., 2005; Tucker, Ellickson, Orlando, Martino, & Klein, 2005) along with substantial financial costs to individuals and society as a whole (Miller, 2004; National Research Council, 2004). Current early substance use prevention and intervention programs have been found to be limited in their effectiveness (Ennett et al., 1994; Ennett et al., 2003; Waldron & Turner, 2008). Thus, a better understanding of factors that influence risk for early substance use is important for the improvement of current substance use prevention and intervention strategies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study evaluated the link between proactive (goal-oriented) and reactive (behavior in response to a perceived threat) aggression and lifetime alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use in a sample of 152 predominantly Hispanic (94.7%) high school students. Furthermore, the impact of neighborhood violence and gender invariance on these associations were examined. Findings suggested unique associations between proactive, not reactive, aggression and use of all three substances. No significant interactions between the aggression subtypes and neighborhood violence were evident, and no gender differences emerged. Findings suggest targeting proactive aggression for the prevention of substance use for both males and females.
    Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 10/2014; 23(6):398-406. DOI:10.1080/1067828X.2012.748440 · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Contributions of the Current Review Since Waldron and Turner (2008) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article updates the evidence base on outpatient behavioral treatments for adolescent substance use (ASU) since publication of the previous review completed for this journal by Waldron and Turner (2008). It first summarizes the Waldron and Turner findings as well as those from more recent literature reviews and meta-analytic studies of ASU treatment. It then presents study design and methods criteria used to select 19 comparative studies subjected to Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology level of support evaluation. These 19 studies are grouped by study category (efficacy or effectiveness) and described for sample characteristics, methodological quality, and substance use outcomes. Cumulative level of support designations are then made for each identified treatment approach: ecological family-based treatment, group cognitive-behavioral therapy, and individual cognitive-behavioral therapy are deemed Well Established; behavioral family-based treatment and motivational interviewing are deemed Probably Efficacious; drug counseling is deemed Possibly Efficacious; and four integrated treatment models combining more than one approach are deemed Well Established or Probably Efficacious. The remainder of the article (a) articulates fidelity, mediator, and moderator effects reported for evidence-based approaches since 2008 and (b) recommends four enhancements to the prevailing business model of ASU outpatient services to accelerate penetration of evidence-based approaches into the underserved consumer base: pursue partnerships with influential governmental systems, utilize web-based technology to extend reach and control costs, adapt effective methods for linking services across sectors of care, and promote uptake and sustainability by emphasizing return on investment.
    Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 06/2014; 43(5):1-26. DOI:10.1080/15374416.2014.915550 · 1.92 Impact Factor
Show more