4.2 Article

The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Study: Main findings from two randomized trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 197-213

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2003.09.005

Keywords

Marijuana; manual-guided therapy; adolescents; treatment effectiveness; cost-effectiveness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents the main outcome findings from two inter-related randomized trials conducted at four sites to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of five short-term outpatient interventions for adolescents with cannabis use disorders. Trial I compared five sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy plus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (MET/CBT) with a 12-session regimen of MET and CBT (MET/CBT 12) and another that included family education and therapy components (Family Support Network [FSN]). Trial II compared the five-session MET/CBT with the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (ACRA) and Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT). The 600 cannabis users were predominately white males, aged 15-16. All five CYT interventions demonstrated significant pre-post treatment improvements during the 12 months after random assignment to a treatment intervention in the two main outcomes: days of abstinence and the percent of adolescents in recovery (no use or abuse/dependence problems and living in the community). Overall, the clinical outcomes were very similar across sites and conditions; however, after controlling for initial severity, the most cost-effective interventions were MET/CBT5 and MET/CBT12 in Trial 1 and ACRA and MET/CBT5 in Trial 2. It is possible that the similar results occurred because outcomes were driven more by general factors beyond the treatment approaches tested in this study; or because of shared, general helping factors across therapies that helped these teens attend to and decrease their connection to cannabis and alcohol. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available