4.2 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 197-213

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据