Detailed Study Abstracts Study AADAC AAIM ACC BTOS CATOR CBTvIT CBTvPET CTOS CvOPFT CYT DARP DATOS-A DOMS FDES FES FFTvCBT FTvPG FYTO  ICPSvFBT LCT MDFT1 MDFT2 MMS MST1 MST2 NTIES PBFTvTIPS PSUD SCT SFPS SROS SSSE TCA TOPS Name Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission Evaluation Alcoholics Anonymous Inpatient Model Assertive Continuing Care Behavioral Therapy Outcomes Study CATOR Systems of New Standards, Inc Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy versus Interactional Therapy Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy versus Psychoeducational Therapy Canada Treatment Outcomes Study Conjoint versus One-person Family Therapy Cannabis Youth Treatment Study Drug Abuse Reporting Program Drug Abuse Treatment Outcomes Study of Adolescents Drug Outcomes Monitoring Study Family Drug Education Study Fluoxetine Effectiveness Study Functional Family Therapy versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Family Therapy versus Parent Groups Four Year Treatment Outcomes Individual-Cognitive Problem Solving v. Family-Behavior Therapy Lithium Controlled Trial Multidimensional Family Therapy Study 1 Multidimensional Family Therapy Study 2 Minnesota Model Study Multisystemic Therapy Study 1 Multisystemic Therapy Study 2 National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study Purdue Brief Family Therapy v. Training in Parenting Skills Psychoactive Substance Use Disorder Sertraline Controlled Trial San Francisco Project Study Services Research Outcomes Study Strategic Structural Systems Approach v. Engagement as Usual Therapeutic Communities for Adolescents Treatment Outcome Prospective Study Treatment Level of Care and Types ("Brand" names) Outpatient:  Other and Intensive Outpatient Residential: 12-step Centered Other: Continuing Care Other Treatment:  Continuing Care (ACC and usual continuing care) Minimal Treatment:  Supportive Therapy Outpatient: Behavior Therapy Residential:  12-step Centered, Other Short Term Residential Other:  Continuing Care Minimal Treatment (IT) Outpatient: Behavior Therapy (CBT)  Outpatient: Family (CBT, PETS) Outpatient:  Other (Day Treatment) Residential:  Short Term Outpatient: Family Therapy (CFT, OPFT) Outpatient: Behavior Therapy (MET/CBT5, MET/CBT12, ACRA) and Family Therapy (FSN, MDFT) Outpatient: Other and Methadone Maintenance Residential:  Detoxification, Short Term and Therapeutic Community Outpatient:  Other Residential: Short Term and Long Term Outpatient:  Other and Intensive Outpatient Residential:  Short Term and Long Term Minimal Treatment:  Family Drug Education (FDE) Outpatient: Adolescent Group Therapy (AGT) and Family Systems Therapy (FST) Other: Psychopharmacology (Fluoxetine for depression) Outpatient: Behavior Therapy (CBT) and Family Therapy (FFT) apart and conjoint Outpatient: Family  Residential: 12-step Outpatient: Behavior Therapy and Family Therapy Other: Psychopharmacology (placebo, lithium for bi-polar) Minimal Treatment:  Multi-Family Education Intervention (MFEI) Outpatient: Behavior (adolescent group therapy) and Family (MDFT) Outpatient: Behavior Therapy (CBT) and Family Therapy (MDFT) Other:  Engagement Minimal Treatment:  Waitlist Outpatient: 12-step Centered Residential: 12-step Centered Minimal Treatment: Probation as Usual Outpatient: Family Therapy (MST)  Minimal Treatment: Probation as Usual Outpatient: Family Therapy (MST)  Outpatient - Other; Residential: Short-Term, Other Long-Term Outpatient: Family (PBFT, TIPS) Residential: Other Short Term Residential Other: Continuing Care Outpatient: Behavioral with Other: Psychopharmacological (placebo and sertaline for depression) Minimal Treatment: Probation as Usual Residential:  Long Term  Outpatient - Other; Residential: Short-Term, Long-Term Other: Engagement (SSSE and engagement as usual) Residential: Therapeutic Community Outpatient:  Other outpatient Residential:  Short Term, Long Term, Therapeutic Communities     Demographics: 38% Female, Race NR, ages 13 -19 (Mean = 16.2 for boys, 15.8 for girls) % involved in criminal justice system not reported, however, 71% reported legal problems. Marijuana and alcohol were the most mentioned drugs of choice. Dependency: NR - however, all were in a hospital inpatient chemical dependency unit, which would assume 100% dependent Comorbidity:  NR Demographics: 23.7% Female, 73.7% White, ages 12-18 (53.5% were age 17or 18), 82.5% involved with criminal justice system, 100% met DSM-IV criteria for substance use disorder, Between 53-57% used marijuana weekly prior to intake, between 24 and 28% used alcohol weekly prior to intake, and between 12 and 18% used any other drug weekly prior to intake. Dependence: 90.3% met marijuana dependence criteria, 57.1% met alcohol dependence criteria. Comorbidity: 48% had prior mental health treatment. Demographics: 23% Female, 81% White, ages 13 - 18 (Mean = 16 years). Referral was from agency or school (58%) or family (42%), no criminal justice system involvement reported. Drug use at intake was principally marijuana (96%), followed by crack/cocaine (35%) and hallucinogens (31%). Subject requirements included that participants have used another illegal drug besides alcohol in the past month. Dependence: NR. Comorbidity: NR Demographics: 40% Female, 90% White, 75% between ages 15-17, 81% in school, 44% living with both parents, over 90% were privately insured. Referral: 10% referred by physican (5% as primary referral).  Criminal justice system involvement NR, but 51% had a history of arrest.  Drug use at intake was principally marijuana (72), followed by alcohol (72%), stimulants (22%), Hallucinogens (21%), crack/cocaine (16%), inhalants (14%) (and several others that are under 10%); 44% weekly use. Dependence: Rate NR, but 34% to 81% endorsed one or more of 14 individual diagnostic indicators. Comorbidity: 51% phsycial or sexual abuse, 40% depression, 22% sucide ideation, 21% sucide attempt, 46% history of parent use. Demographics: 40% of CBT subjects were Female, 37% of IT subjects were Female, 80% of CBT subjects were White, 100% of IT subjects were White. Ages 13 -18. (Mean age CBT = 15.4 years, IT = 16.3 years). Referral source was the hospital program (PHP). Drug use patterns NR. Dependence: All adolescents (100%) met DSM-IV criteria substance use disorder. Comorbidity: All adolescents (100%) had either an externalizing disorder (e.g. disruptive behavior) or internalizing disorder (e.g. anxiety or depression) as determined by the Diagnostic Interview for Children. The study composed the outpatient aftercare treatment from a partial hospitalization program.  Demographics: 30% Female,  10% Non White. Ages: 13-18 (Mean = 15.4 years). % CJ Referral: NR. Substance use pattern: NR. % Dependent: 100% for "psychoactive substance use disorder." Comorbidity: 100% Axis I DSM-III-R diagnosis: 55% Any Externalizing (39% Conduct, 18% ADHD, 9% Oppositional); 30% Any Internalizing (22% Depression, 26% Anxiety). Demographics: 35% Female, % Non White: NR, Mean age = 16.5 years. % CJ Referral: NR, but 67% reported legal difficulties. Substance use pattern: "all were multiple drug users" - otherwise NR. Dependent: 100% met DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse. Comorbidity: 76% reported previous involvement with a mental health professional.  Demographics: 22% Female, 100% Hispanic adolescents, 84% Cuban-American. Age Range = 12 - 20 (Mean = 17 years). % CJ Referral: Families were recruited from the court and community agencies, public service announcements, and self-referrals (no figures given). Substance use pattern: NR. Dependence: Inclusion criteria for study was "sufficient use of a drug to pose a problem as assessed by the CODAP". Otherwise NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 17% Female, 61% White, ages 13-18 (Mean = 16 years). 62% referred by criminal justice system. Substance Use Pattern: 71% daily or weekly marijuana use, 17% daily or weekly alcohol use, 1% daily or weekly other drug use. % Dependence: 86% had any marijuana disorder, 37% any alcohol use disorder, 12% any other substance use disorder. Comorbidity: 53% CD, 38% ADHD, 13% GAD, 14% major depression, 25% any internal disorder, 61% any external disorder.  Demographics: 25% Female, 30% Black, 70% White in original sample, in follow-up: 38% Black and 62% White. Other groups excluded. All in study under age 20 (Broken down by: Under 16, 16-17, 18, 19.) % criminal justice referral not reported, but Mean of 61 for arrests before DARP. Substance use: Young whites high on nonopioids and marijuana, low on opioids; young blacks high on opioids, relatively low on marijuana and non-opioids; older whites high on all three. Dependence: NR. Comorbidity: NR.  Demographics: 31.5% Female, 33.8% Non White, ages 11-18 (Mean age = 15.7 years; st dev 1.3 years). 58.4% were under CJS supervision, 38.6% referred from CJS, 67.2% criminally active. Dependent: 73% any, 64% = marijuana, 36% = alcohol, 10% = cocaine/crack, 25% poly-drug users. Comorbidity: 12.3% ADHD, 57.7% conduct disorder, 15% depressive disorder, 2% panic disorder, 2% overanxious disorder.  Demographics:  % Female: OP=19%, STR=52%, LTR=13%, % Non-White: OP=22%, STR=29%, LTR=35%. Ages: all under 18. Current CJ involvement: OP=67%, STR=66%, LTR=85%. weekly marijuana use (59-67% dependeing on treatment modality), then weekly alcohol use (0%-35%) Past year dependence: OP=52%, STR=59%, LTR=87%. Comorbidity: NR Demographics: % Female: NR. Mother's race: Mexican-American = 29%, African-American = 2%, White = 68%. Age Range = 11 - 20 (Mean = 15.4 years). Referral source: CJS = 39%, school officials = 22%, parents = 39%. Substance use pattern: Primary drug of choice was marijuana. Other drugs used were alcohol, amphetamines, barbituates, and hallucinogens. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR.  Demographics: 77% Female, 8% Non White, Ages range 15-19 (Mean=18.8 years). % CJ Referral: NR. Substance use pattern: Participants were alcohol users, other drug use not reported. Dependence: 100% DSM-IV dx of major depressive disorder AND either alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse Comorbidity: 100% major depressive disorder, did not report other comorbid disorders. Demographics: 25% Female, 51% Hispanic, 41% White, 8% Native American. Ages 13-17. CJ Referral=43%. Substance use pattern: primarily marijuana. Dependence: 100% met DSM-III-R criteria for a primary substance use disorder. Comorbidity: 89.8% had score at or above mean for comparison group on CBCL. 29.7% anxious/depressed, 27.3% attention difficulties, 47.7% externalizing behavior, and 45.3% internalizing behavior. Demographics: 39% Female, 10% Non White, Ages 14 - 21 (Mean = 17.9 years). 40% percent had been arrested at least once. Substance use pattern: Prevalence rates for 3 months prior to treatment were: alcohol (88%), marijuana (87%), amphetamines (52%), cocaine (28%), tranquilizers (23%), hallucinogens (22%), PCP (15%) and barbituates (15%). Dependence: Authors suggested that at least the majority of the sample could be considered to have a major drug abuse problem - not specifically diagnosed, however. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 37% Female, 17% Non White, Ages Range 12 - 18 (Mean = 15.97 years). % CJS referral: Not addressed.Substance use pattern: Prior to treatment, the most frequently used drugs were beer and hard liquor, then marjiuana and amphetamines, with cocaine also commonly used. % Dependence: 100% met DSM-III-R lifetime criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, most had a history of abuse or dependence of at least one other substance. Comorbidity: Adolescents who met APA criteria for psychiatric substance abuse were included, adolescents with clinical diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or bi-polar disorders were not included. A significant portion of the sample met criteria for conduct disorder. Demographics: 18% Female, 21% Non White, Ages Range 12-18 (Mean=15.4 years). % CJ Referral: NR but arrest records were used. Substance use pattern: All had used marijuana at least once, most had used alcohol or other illicit drugs also. Dependent: 100% DSM-IV diagnosis of Substance  Abuse or Dependence. Comorbidity: 100% DSM-IV Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder.  Demographics: 36% Female, 100% Caucasian (0% Non White), Ages range 12-18 (Mean=16.3 years). % CJS referral: NR, but 52% had been arrested and 24% had prior convictions. Substance use pattern: DSM-III-R substance use diagnosis was temporally secondary to bipolar disorder diagnosis in 100% - Marijuana only (8%), and alcohol only (28%), marjuana and alcohol (Both=56%), inhalant only 4%, inhalant, alcohol and cough syrup (4%). Comorbidity: 100% were diagnosed with bipolar disorder prior to SUD. In addition, 16% had CD, 36% dysthymia, 32% ADHD. Demographics: 20% Female, 51% Caucasian, 18% African-American, 15% Hispanic, 6% Asian, and 10% Other. Ages Range = 13 - 18 (Mean = 15.9 years) 61% were involved in the CJS, and most referrals (no figures given) came through them, followed by schools, health and mental health agencies, and the media.Substance use pattern: 51% used more than one drug -- alcohol and marijuana on a daily basis, and other drugs (usually cocaine, stiimulants, and hallucinogens) approximately once per week. The remaining 49% used alcohol and marijuana about three to four times per week. Dependent NR. Requirement of participants of using marijuana at least 1-2 times per week that did not require detoxification. Comorbidity: NR.  Demographics: 19% Female, 72% African-American, 18% Caucasian, 10% Hispanic,ages 12-17 (Mean = 15.4 years), Engaged court ordered participants= mean of 32, Unengaged court ordered participants = mean of 40. Primarily marijuana use. Dependence: 78% met DSM-III-R criteria for dependence, 17% met abuse criteria. Comorbidity: 78% had met criteria for a comorbid disorder: 67% conduct disorder, 50% oppositional defiant disorder, 27% ADHD, 21% dysthymia, and 17% major depressive disorder. Demographics: 44% Female, 14.7% Non White. Age Range = 12 -18 (60% were age 16 to 18). Referral sources were: another professional or service provider (52%), family member (13%), school health official (10%), and the courts (5%). However, 52% of participants had previous or current legal problems. Substance use pattern: 86% were marijuana-dependent, 77% were alcohol dependent, 20% were amphetamine dependent, and 21% were other drug dependent. Dependence: All adolescents (100%) had at least one substance abuse disorder as defined by APA. Average number of substance use disorders per participant was 2.2. Comorbidity: 82% of adolescents had a history of or current co-existing psychiatric disorder and 65% had a history of counseling from a mental health provider. Demographics: 28% Female, 26% Non White, Mean age = 15.1 years. 100% were referred from CJS. All adolescents had at least two prior arrests (average 4.2 arrests per participant), severity of offenses averaged 12 on a scale of 1 to 17. About 13% had a previous substance-related offense.Substance use pattern: NR. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 21% Female, 53% Non White, Ages Range = 12-17 (Mean = 15.7 years). 100% were CJS referrals with an average of 2.9 prior arrests. Substance use pattern: Drug use at intake was primarly marijuana and alcohol. 60% of the adolescents abused more than one drug. % Dependence: 100% met criteria for (APA) psychoactive substance abuse or dependence (56% abuse and 44% dependence). Comorbidity: 72% of the adolescents had at least one additional psychiatric diagnosis. Demographics: 21% of adolesents and 14% of young adults were Female. 26% Black, 33% Hispanic, rest White among adolescents. Young adults = 25% Black, 33% Hispanic, and the rest White. Two age groups studied: 13-17 (adolescents), and 18-20 (young adults). Total range = 13-20. 38% of young adults were in correctional institution programs. Also, 50% of adolescents and 61% of young adults listed CSJ pressure as their reason for entering treatment. Substance use pattern: 56% of adolescents and 45% of young adults reported marijuana or a combination of marijuana and alcohol as their primary reason for entering treatment. Dependence: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 19% Female, % Non White NR, Age Range = 12 - 22 (Mean = 16 years). 51% were referred from CJS, 34% were from schools and agencies, and 15% were self and family referrals, mostly from a newspaper ad. Substance use pattern: Article states most of the sample were more than occassional or recreational users by comparison to the Monitoring the Future study averages.Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 47% Female, % Non White NR. Age Range = 14-18 (Mean = 16 years). 43% CJ Referral. Substance use pattern: Marijuana (most), alcohol abuser, and heroin (half). Dependence: 100% demonstrated symptoms consistent with DSM-IV criteria for a substance abuse or dependence disorder. Cormorbidity: 89.8% had score at or above mean for comparison group on CBCL. 29.7% anxious/depressed, 27.3% attention difficulties, 47.7% externalizing behavior, and 45.3% internalizing behavior. Demographics: 20% Female, 20% Non White, Mean Age =16.6 years. % CJ Referral: NR. Substance use pattern: alcohol. Dependent: 100% alcohol use disorder. Comorbidity: 100% primary depressive disorder.  Demographics: 37% Female, 52% White, 22% Hispanic, 16% Black, 7% Other. 100% CJ Referral. Substance use pattern: NR. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: Used DSM-III, sample "consisted mostly" of Conduct Disorders, depression, Passive-aggressive and/or Borderline Personality Disorders. % with each not given. Demographics: Not broken down by age (adolescent versus adult), but entire sample was 71.4% male, 28.6% female. Not broken down by age, but entire sample was 60.1% White, 28.4% Black, 8.2% Hispanic, and 3.3% Other. Listed CJ pressure as a reason for entering treatment (could list more than one reason): 8% of total N (144), but outpatient drugfree group included a higher proportion (14% versus 4%). 50.3% of those age 18 and under. Substance use pattern: All respondents (not delineated by age) 64% cited alcohol as main drug, 26% named marijuana, 23% named cocaine, 22% crack, and 11% heroin (about half cited more than one drug). Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 33% Female, All (100%) Hispanic, 82% were of Cuban origin. Age Range = 12-21 (82% were between ages 14 - 18). 90% of referrals came from mother of adolescent. Substance use pattern: NR. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: 24% Female, 49% Caucasian, 27% African-American, 21% Hispanic. 56% were 16-17 years old. Over 75% were CJS referrals.Substance use pattern: Primary drug of choice was marijuana (56%) followed by alcohol (20%).  Range of primary drug varied considerably across sites. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Demographics: For Total 34.6% Female, 10% Non White. Ages: Under 20 considered adolescent (For OP: under 17 = 22.4% of males, 17% of females. OP age 18-19 = 47% of males and 21% of females; For residential: 48% of males and 19% of females under 17, 45% of males and 27% of females age 18-19),  % CJ Referral: NR. Substance use pattern: under 17 males 60% marijuana/alcohol users, females 41.8% marijuana/alcohol users. Dependent: NR. Comorbidity: NR. Sample Sizes 253 157 114 26 overall = 15 in behavioral (experimental group) and 11 in control group. Baseline sample of 4370;  follow-up sample targeted NR; Results based 1483 adolescent with12 month follow-up interviews 32 88 135 37 adolescents and their families 600 5405 intake sample, 775 sampled for follow-up (only 587 actually done) 1732 (only 1167 actually followed-up) 271 134 adolescents plus at least one parent for each 13 114 135 166 56 25 152 - 95 at follow-up 224 245, 179 received treatment, 66 were on waiting lists 47 (28 in MST condition and 19 in probation as usual condition) 118 482, 236 adolescents and 246 young adults 84 (a subsample of a larger study of 136) adolescents and their families 110 (60 in intervention, 61 not) 10 87 1799, 471 from OP Drug free (entire sample - adults and adolescents)--under 180 adolescents 108 938 originally; follow-up status was obtained on 557; have data for 485. OP Drug free adolescents = 640;  Residential = 402;  375 sampled for follow-up (only 240 completed) Follow-up Periods and Rate Discharge and 3-months post-discharge; 195/253=77% follow-up at 3-month post-discharge 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post discharge 6 month = 96%, 12 month = 93%, and 24 month = 89% Three months 114/120=95% 6 and 12 months 26/29=89.7%. The three participants that were dropped did not complete at least 4 treatment sessions (see requirement listed in "Other Key Features"). 6 and 12 months post discharge, follow-up rates not reported 3-month follow-up rate = 26/32 = 81.3%. 15-month follow-up rate = 14/32 = 43.8%.  3 months post-discharge = 80%; 9 months post-discharge= 65% 6-months post-treatment; 106/135=79%. Treatment termination and follow-up (occurred between 6 and 12 months after termination). 24/37=64.9% 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-intake, 94% follow-up across all waves and sites.  4 to 6 years post discharge 587/775 (76%) of follow-up sample 12 months post discharge 1732 admissions/1167 in follow-up interview = 67% 3 months post = 93.4%  Treatment completion and 6 months post Followup data done on treatment completers only. Pre- to Post- test rate = 82/134=61.2%. Pre- to Post- to 6-month-follow-up rate is 34/134=25.4%. Due to the low follow-up rate, the authors cite insufficient data to make meaningful pre-test post-test comparisons. This rate dropped due to economic factors (oil shortage in Lubbock, TX (Site) caused families to move out of the area to look for work). 12 weeks, 13/13= 100% 4 & 7 months post intake 0.95 (114/120) Post-treatment completion (about 6 months post intake) and 9 months post-completion (about 15 months post-intake) 135 completed follow-up/169 started treatment = 80% followup rate 6-months, and 1-, 2-, and 4-years post-treatment 97% follow-up at 2- and 4-year interviews 6 months 6 weeks; 21/25=.84 Treatment completion and 6 and 12 months post intake 95/152=63%. Started with 152, there were 57 dropouts (defined as terminating after the first session and before the 14th session or failing to return for the post-assessment). Thus, all included participants have provided full data, and there is no data on non-completers. No follow-up period - experimental only  6 and 12 months follow-up 245/258 = 94.96% Family and Neighborhood Services Project - pretreatment and posttreatment only.  Post-treatment (T2), 6-months post-treatment (T3), and 4-years post-treatment. At 4-years post-treatment, follow-up rates were: 80/118=68%. 100% of archival measures (arrest and incarceration) were collected through to T3. T2 research protocols were completed by 100% and 93% of families in the MST and probation as usual conditions, respectively, and T3 assessments were completed by 93% and 90% of families in the MST and probation usual condition, respectively.  Discharge from treatment and 12 months post discharge 0.82 Pre-post findings - is a subset of a larger study 75/84=89.3% Treatment completion and 3-months post-discharge 0.73 12 weeks, 100% follow-up 12 months; 74/87=84% 5-6 years post discharge 1799/3047=68% completed 5 year follow-up. 82% completed 9 month follow-up Follow-up Treatment completion - completers versus not-completed NR. 12 months; follow-up status was obtained on 557; have data for 485. 485/938=52%. 12 months post discharge 240/375=64% includes both OP and Res Design, Measures and Methodological Rigor Major multi-site study (26 facilities), study specific structured assessment Pre-post, long-term follow-up, repeated measures, study specific structured assessment Experimental design, aftercare as usual comparisons, repeated measures, standardized measures (GAIN, TLFB, FFS, ARCQ, SPQ, SMI urine; parent/collateral with CAF, PPS, CBCL), validations analyses reported (to records, on-site urine, CAF) Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, repeated measures, experiment, standardized measures (YSS, BDI, QPBC, Urine. Parent: PS) Major multi-site study (30 inpatient or residential treament programs), multiple quasi-experimental comparison of post-discharge continuing care and peer subgroups, repeated measures, study specific structured assessment Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, repeated measures, standardized measures (T-ASI, T-TSR, DISC, YSR, SCQ, urine; Parent/collateral with CBCL), longer-term follow-up Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, repeated measures, standardized measures (T-ASI, DISC, DOTS-R, SCID-II, urine; Parent/collateral with CBCL), longer-term follow-up. Quasi-experimental design, repeated measures, standardized measures (CADUH, AAIS, DAST, YSR, CSEI, IFR, IPR), comparisons across levels of care Experimental design, multiple protocols comparison, repeated measures, standardized measures (Adolescent and parent with PSS, BPC, FTR, FES) , longer-term follow-up Experimental design, multiple protocol comparison in 2 experiments, major multi-site study (4 sites), repeated measures, standardized measures (GAIN, ARFQ, FES, FFS, ARCQ, SPQ, DOTS-R, urine, other, Collateral/Parent: CAF, CBCL, PPS, WAI), validation analysis reported (to records, on site and quantitative urine, parent/collateral), long term follow-up, compared multiple published manualized protocols Major multi-site study, study specific structured assessment, urine testing, longer-term follow-up,data across level of care, adult comparison groups Major multi-site study (4 cities), study specific structured assessment incorporating some modified standardized measures (PSI, DISC-R, urine), longer-term follow-up, data across level of care, parallel adult study (but with different measures) Major multi-site study (11 sites), repeated measures, structured assessment (GAIN), validation reported (to records), data across levels of care, adult comparison groups Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison, repeated measures, standardized measures (PAC, F-Copes, SRFI;  Parent: DAS, PAC, F-Copes, SRFI) Open label design; one group (no comparison); standardized measures (HAM-D, BDI, CGI) and study specific structured assessment, verified compliance of medication by pill count Experimental design, multiple protocol comparison, repeated measures, standardized measures (TLFB-90D, POSIT, CBCL, urine;  Parent with TLFB-90D) Experimental design, multiple protocol comparison, repeated measures, standardized measures (CIF, DSI, FES, FACES-II, PAC, BSI, FRTB;  Parent with PIF) longer-term follow-up,  Repeated measures, standardized measures (CDDR, ARCQ), very long-term follow-up Experimental design, multiple protocol comparison, repeated measures, standardized measures (SCID-IV, TLFB, YSR, SPSI-R, YHPS, LSS-A, BDI, urine; Parent with P-CAS, SCID-IV, TLFB, CBCL, ECBI, PHYS). Experimental design, minimal treatment control group, repeated measures, standardized measure (K-SADS, CGAS, ADI, ALSEI, urine; Parent with K-SADS, FH-RDC).  Note follow-up limited to urine test data. Experimental design,multiple protocol comparison, repeated measures, standardized assessment (AOB, GHPS, urine), longer-term follow-up Experimental design,multiple protocol comparison,  repeated measures, standardized measure (TLFB, CBCL, YSR, FES; Parents with SCL-90-R) Quasi-experimental design, waiting list comparison group, repeated measures, standardized assessment (PEI, urine), longer-term follow-up, data across levels of care Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, study specific structured assessment incorporating SRD Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, repeated measures, standardized measures (ASI, SRD, YAS, YRBS, urine, hair),  longer-term follow-up Major multi-site study, study specific structured assessment incorporating urine testing, validation reported (to urine test - but mixed with adult data) longer-term follow-up, data across levels of care, adult comparison on same measures Experimental design, minimal treatment comparison group, repeated measures, standardized measures (FACES-III, PAC, FPAS, KFST, DFI, PUHQ, IDS, Urine) Quasi-experimental design, minimal treatment control group, standardized measures (OTI, SCL-90-R) Experimental design, double-blind placebo-control group, standardized measures (TLFB, K-SADS, HAM-D, SCID-R, urine) Experimental design, minimal treatment control group, repeated measures, study specific structured assessment, standardized measure (MMPI), longer-term follow-up Major multi-site study, records and study specific (follow-up only) measure, urine testing, validation reported to urine, longer-term follow-up, data across level of care Experimental design, minimal treatment control group, standardized measures (PSS, CODAP) Multi-site study (9 sites); repeated measures, standardized measure (CTCR, urine); longer-term follow-up Major multi-site study (9 cities), study specific structured assessment with urine testing, validation reported to urine testing, longer-term follow-up, data across levels of care, adult comparison groups Treatment Integrity, Manualization and Availability Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: Unpublished manual available from author:      AADAC. (July, 1989). AADAC Adolescent Day Program Manual Draft 1. Author. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR Treatment integrity: Case management supervision with observation or audiotape review, and data were collected from participants at follow-up regarding types of services they participated in during continuing care, use of service contact logs. Manualization:        Godley, S. H., Godley, M. D., Karvinen, T., & Slown, L. L. (2001). The Assertive Aftercare Protocol: A case manager's manual for working with adolescents after residential treatment of alcohol and other substance use disorders. Bloomington, IL: Lighthouse Institute.      Godley, S. H., Meyers, R. J., Smith, J. E., Godley, M. D., Titus, J. C., Karvinen, T., Dent, G., Passetti, L., & Kelberg, P. (2001). The Adolescents Community Reinforcement Approach (ACRA) for Adolescent Cannabis Users. Volume 4 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3489). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.   Treatment integrity reported: Audiotape review - all sessions taped, random review. Also a session checklist filled out by counselor was reviewed weekly. Parent interviews were done for corroboration, 1 month pre-treatment, baseline, and 6 month post treatment (end of treatment) were done. No preexisting differences existed on demographics between the two groups. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity reported: NR Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity reported: Session videotaping with review and feedback, weekly urine drug screens for corroboration, therapist training and practice and checklist. Manualization:     Kadden, R. M., Carroll, K., & Donovan, D. (Eds.). (1992). Cognitive-behavioral coping skills therapy manual: A clinical research guide for therapists treating individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.    Unpublished IT manual summarized in: Brown, S., & Yalom, I. D. (1977). Interactional group therapy with alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 426-456. Treatment Integrity: Therapist supervision, videotaped all sessions, reviewed, and provided weekly feedback. Manualization: CBT used manualized treatment, manual citation not given. No manualization for PET (PET is minimal treatment control).  Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity reported: Used manual-guided therapy, therapist rating scales, supervisor review of taped sessions, and service contact logs. Manualization: All 5 treatments manualized and available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li/bookstore.    Godley, S. H., Meyers, R. J., Smith, J. E., Godley, M. D., Titus, J. C., Karvinen, T., Dent, G., Passetti, L., & Kelberg, P. (2001). The Adolescents Community Reinforcement Approach (ACRA) for Adolescent Cannabis Users. Volume 4 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3489). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li/bookstore    Hamilton, N., Brantley, L., Tims, F., Angelovich, N., & McDougall, B. (2001). Family Support Network (FSN) for adolescent cannabis users. Volume 3 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3488). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li/bookstore (CONTINUED BELOW under references) Treatment integrity: NR. No manualization.  Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR Treatment integrity: Content of treatment was "carefully monitored." Manualization: "detailed descriptions of therapies available from author." Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment Integrity: Therapist adherence techniques were used and described. Session checklists were used, supervision and videotaping were used for all treatment conditions. Manuals used:     Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional family therapy (FFT): Principles and procedures. Carmel, CA: Brooks/Cole.     Kadden, R., Carroll, K., Donovan, D., Cooney, N., Monti, P., Abrams, D., Litt, M., & Hester, R. (1995). Cognitive-behavioral coping skills therapy manual. (Vol. 3). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO.     Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Treatment integrity: Training workshops and seminars were given to the family therapists, and sessions were taped. 20 random tapes were chosen for adherence to the manual. Only 3% were considered inconsistent with method. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: therapist session documentation, audiotaping of all sessions with supervisory review and feedback, ongoing clinical supervision, detailed prompting lists for therapist materials and tasks, independent reliability rating. Manualization:     Unpublished FBT manual described in: Donohue, B., & Azrin, N. H. (2001). Family behavior therapy. In E. F. Wagner & H. B. Waldron (Eds.), Innovations in adolescent substance abuse interventions. Kidlington, Oxford: Pergamon Press.    Unpublished ICPS protocol based on D'Zurilla, T. J. (1986). Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention. New York: Springer. Treatment integrity: Compliance measured by pill count and random weekly serum lithium levels (blood test). Two in-person contacts per week (one scheduled, one random) with some assessment at each, blood test and urine drug test once per week. Manualization: NR Treatment integrity: Ongoing supervision was provided weekly for all therapists. All sessions were videotaped. Supervision included ase review, videotape review, or live supervision. Parent corroboration and school grades checked as well as urinalysis. Raters were blind to treatment condition and phase. Manualization:      Liddle, H. (2002). Multidimensional Family Therapy Treatment (MDFT) for adolescent cannabis users. Volume 5 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 02-3660). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li.     Barrett, K. (1990). Multi-Family Educational Intervention (MEI): Manual. Unpublished manual available from University of California, San Francisco. (summarized in: Beck, A. P. (1981). A study of group phase development and emergent leadership. Group, 5, 234-246.) Therapist adherence: NR. Manualization:      Liddle, H. (2002). Multidimensional Family Therapy Treatment (MDFT) for adolescent cannabis users. Volume 5 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 02-3660). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li.    CBT based on unpublished manual summarized in: Turner, R. M. (1993). Dynamic cognitive behavior therapy. In T. Giles (Ed.), Handbook of effective psychotherapy (pp. 135-156). New York: Guilford. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: Therapist training and weekly monitoring of groups. Manualization:      Unpublished and proprietary manual described in: Henggeler, S. W., & Borduin, C. M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multi-systemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Pacific Groves, CA: Brooks/Cole. (also, see subsequent published manual in MST2 Treatment integrity: This study suffered from low therapist adherence to treatment protocol (say the authors). Manualization:       Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (1998). The MST supervisory manual: Promoting quality assurance at the clinical level. Charleston, SC: MST Institute. Available from author at henggesw@musc.edu. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR.   Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatement Integrity: NR. Manualization: No manual, but protocol summarized in Amini, F., & Salasnek, S. (1975). Adolescent drug abuse: A comprehensive model. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 16, 379-389. Treatment Integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: Supervisor review of therapist's contact logs, supervisor's rater logs. Manualization: NR.  Treatment integrity: NR; Manualization: NR. Treatment integrity: NR. Manualization: NR. Continued AADAC AAIM ACC BTOS CATOR CBTvIT CBTvPET CTOS CvOPFT CYT DARP DATOS-A DOMS FDES FES FFTvCBT FTvPG FYTO  ICPSvFBT LCT MDFT1 MDFT2 MMS MST1 MST2 NTIES PBFTvTIPS PSUD SCT SFPS SROS SSSE TCA TOPS Initial Treatment Effects At 3-months post-discharge, 29% of participants had 30 days of uninterrupted abstinence, 40% had decreased their use substantially, and 56% had decreased life problems. At *6 months post, "abstainers" Males, completers vs. noncompleters=.47 to .78. Same data for females, *6 months post (completers vs. noncompleters)= .55 to .79. NOTE - baseline data not given, could only compare between groups. Significant change between groups decrease in alcohol use over time from pre to post ACC=14% to 5%, usual continuing care (UCC)=11% to 9%; non significant trend change between groups on change in marijuana use pre to post: ACC=40% to 14%, UCC=36% to 19%;  ACC participants were able to sustain abstinence from marijuana for significantly longer the UCC  (90 vs. 31 days) and had a non-signifcant trend toward longer abstinence from alcohol (83 vs. 63 days).  Behavioral group pre vs. 6 months post use= 100% to 27%. Same for control group=100% to .92%. .For adolescents in behavioral treatment, alcohol use decreased by about 50% while in increased by 50% in the control group. Chi-square for difference between groups in use at 6 months post = 10.54 (N=26) with an effect size of 1.65 between behavioral and control groups. NR At 3-month follow-up, adolescents in CBT treatment significantly reduced the severity of their substance use compared with those assigned to IT.  At 3- months post-discharge, alcohol problems improved significantly overall (Mean score 1.1 to 0.5;); with a trend towards more improvement for PET than CBT (PET  mean score 1.4 to 0.6; CBT mean score 0.8 to 0.5). At 3-months post-discharge, substance abuse problems overall improved significantly (mean score 1.7 to 0.8); with a trend towards more improvement for CBT than for PET (PET mean score 1.6 to 1.0; CBT mean score 1.8 to 0.6). Found significant (p<.001) reductions in substance use for all clients: alcohol (F=17.71), cannabis (F=55.51), other drugs (F=37.35). No differences in outcomes between inpatient clients and day treatment (outpatient) clients. Pre to post treatment change in "drug abuse" index CFT=65.00 to 53.40 (SD=10.10). For OPFT=75.60 to 57.50 (SD=13.30). Post treatment comparison of CFT vs. OPFT=57.50 to 53.40 (SD=10.90).   Both conditions were highly effective in improving family functioning and OPFT was slightly more effective in reducing patient symptomatology During the 3-month treatment phase, all interventions reduced days of cannabis use from 36 to 22 (-37.0%, p<.05) and number of substance problems from 3.8 to 2.4 (-37.3%, p<.05).  The short term reduction in marijuana use was significantly larger for ACRA (-35%) and MET/CBT5 (-33%) than for MDFT (-28%).   The short term reduction in problems was significantly larger for FSN (-47%) than for MET/CBT5 (-39%) or MET/CBT12 (-20%). Mean change in days of marijuana use from 0-3 months: Incremental: MET/CBT5=30.5 to 15.6, MET/CBT12= 33.6 to 22.4, MET/CBT12+FSN= 36.4 to 20.0, total incremental=33.6 to 19.3. Alternative: MET/CBT5=39.2 to 26.4, ACRA=35.7 to 23.3, MDFT=38.7 to 27.8, total alternative= 37.8 to 25.7. NR NR Change in substance use index, baseline to 3 months post: OP .11 to .08 (-21%, d = -.18), STR .21 to .10 (-51%, d=-0.47),  LTR  .24 to .06 (-73%, d=-0.72). Time not given, post-test AGT vs. FST = .40 to .68. FDE vs. FST=.40 to .66. FDE vs. AGE=.68 to .66. Time not given, pre vs. post for users AGT= .96 to .68, FDE=.97 to .66 A significant within-group decrease (improvement) was found for both depressive symptoms and drinking during the course of the study. Drinking days per week (not sig.) Means and st. dev. Pre to post: 2.6 to 1.5 (SD=1.0). Drinks per drinking day= 6.7 to 3.7 (SD=5.4). Beck Depression Inventory= 22.6 to 5.8 (SD=6.4). Data reflects mean percentage days of use (*=significant). *FFT pre-4 month follow-up=54.88 to 24.95. *FFT pre-7 month follow-up=54.88 to 40.10. CBT pre-4month follow-up=52.19 to 52.09. CBT pre-7 month follow-up=52.19 to 51.13. *Joint pre-4month follow-up=56.73 to 38.08. * Joint pre-7 month follow-up=56.73 to 36.44. Group pre-4 month follow-up=66.21 to 55.73. *Group pre-7 month follow-up=66.21 to 41.88. At 7 month follow-up, FFT mean percentage days of use=40.10, CBT=51.13, Joint=36.44, and group=41.88. No between treatment-effects were significant at the 7 month follow-up. Change in R square for assignment to treatment (family group vs. parent group) controlling for many variables (all listed in excel sheet) was 0.17 (effect size=0.35). At 6-month post-intake, percentage using alcohol decreased from 91.4% to 50.7% and % using marijuana decreased from 84.0% to 35.0%. Youth in both intervention conditions demonstrated significant decreases in average number of days using illicit drugs. Pre to post treatment mean days of use FBT decreased from 13.62 to 9.00, ICPS from 14.14 to 9.28, Pre to 6-month follow-up means days of use FBT decreased from 13.62 to 8.61 (post to 6-month 9.00 to 8.61) and for ICPS from 14.14 to 8.35 (post to 6-month 9.28 to 8.35). Logistic chi squared analysis of urine drug assays was significantly different for the active (n=13) versus the placebo (n=12) groups (chi squared 2=4.84, df=1, p=.028). Change in use from pre to end of treatment: MDFT= mean 9.85 to 4.54 (SD=3.77). AGT=8.90 to 7.28 (SD=2.82). MEI=10.29 to 7.76 (SD=3.77). End of treatment MDFT vs. AGT=mean 7.28 to 4.54 (SD=3.30). MDFT vs. MEI= 7.76 to 4.54 (SD=5.10). All are significant.  Difference in marijuana use, Engaged group versus unengaged group = 11.79 to 10.43 (SD=11.60). Engaged group versus unengaged group differences for alcohol use = 2.39 to 1.98 (SD=5.50). NR Self-reported soft drug use was significantly lower (F(1,44)=4.44, p<.041) at posttreatment (from pre) for youths in the MST condition (M=.36) than for youth is in the probation as usual condition (M=1.68). A very low base rate on the hard drug use subscale precluded use of statistical analysis to examine treatment effects. There were significant differences in use of marijuana, alcohol and other drugs for MST from pre-post treatment. There were no differences in drug use for the probation as usual group. At post-treatment, MST adolescents' use of marijuana, alcohol, and other drugs was significantly lower than the probation as usual group, but when controlling for preexisting difference this difference disappeared. Pre to 6 month follow up change in alcohol and marijuana use for MST= 30.00 to 19.00 (SD=34.00). Same change for US = 18.00 to 17.00 (SD=27.00). Alcohol and marijuana use MST vs. probation as usual pre to 6 months post=17.00 to 19.00 (SD=29.00). NR At post-treatment, 55% of adolescents in PBFT made significant decreases in drug use. Only 38% of those in TIPS made similar decreases. Measures of drug use at treatment end were significantly lower for adolescents in the PBFT interention. There were no significant differences between pre and post-treatment for those in TIPS. No between group differences, over time there were differences for alcohol, cannabis, and heroin use between baseline and 3 month follow-up. (page 210 has table). There were no subsequent significant differences between 3 and 6 month follow-up. All stats are reported from baseline to 3 months only. No between group stats were reported. Significant main effect of time for both groups, no differences between groups in measure of days of drinking. % days drinking overall change: pre=29, post=27. Drinks per drinking day overall change: pre=8.6, post=4.9.  NR NR No significant differences between groups, authors reported that all within group comparisons from pre-post test were significant at .001. Contrast on drug abuse scale between SSSE groups and EAU group=42.80 to 41.20 (SD=4.70). NR NR Long Term (12+ months) Treatment Effects NA At 1 year post, "abstainers" Males, completers vs. noncompleters = .54 to .54. Same at 2 years post=.41 to .47.  Females (completers vs. noncompleters) 1 year post= .61 to .72. Same at 2 years post= .40 to .68.  Data out through 9 months post discharge will be forthcoming. NR 40% remained sober all year after discharge, including 22% of those attending no aftercare, 51% of those who occassionally attended aftercare and 60% of those who regularlly attended aftercare. (Attendance in aftercare and sobriety were also significantly higher if parents also participated.)  The percent sober all year also varied significantly by the proportion of friends who were using -- 15% if all were using, 32% if about half, and 75% if none.  Weekly used reduced from 44% to 29%.   At 15-month followup, no treatment group differences were observed. At 12-months post-discharge, alcohol problems improved significantly overall (Mean score 1.1 to 0.3;); mean score change for PET group 1.4 to 0.5; mean score change for CBT group 0.8 to 0.3. At 12-months post-discharge, substance abuse problems overall improved significantly (mean score 1.7 to 0.6); mean score change for PET group 1.6 to 0.6; mean score change for CBT group 1.8 to 0.6.  NR Pre-treatment to follow-up change in "drug abuse" CFT=65.00 to 58.40 (SD=10.10). OPFT=57.50 to 56.10 (SD=10.90). Follow-up comparison of CFT vs. OPFT=56.10 to 58.40 (SD=14.00). Overall reductions were sustained through month 12 (22 days and 2 problems, respectively), but the differences between conditions averaged out. Mean change in days of marijuana use from 0-12 months: Incremental: MET/CBT5=30.5 to 19.2, MET/CBT12= 33.6 to 21.6, MET/CBT12+FSN= 36.4 to 25.4, total incremental=33.6 to 22.1. Alternative: MET/CBT5=39.2 to 22.9, ACRA=35.7 to 19.3, MDFT=38.7 to 23.1, total alternative= 37.8 to 21.7. Data out to 30 months post discharge will be forthcoming. Change in alcohol use baseline to 4-6 years post mean (on adjusted scale score) for outpatients differences=.20 to .10, same change for those admitted but didn't attend treatment= .20 to .20 (no change). Change in marijuana use over time for outpatient=.47 to .47 (no change), same change for those admitted but not attending treatment=.60 to .73 (increase). Change in non-opioid use over time for outpatients= .43 to .17. All data are for the Under 18 age category. For Therapeutic Community (TC) findings (reporting same as above) marijuana use .47 to .53 (increase), alcohol use .25 to .25 (no change). 12-month outcomes: Long-term residential reduction in any marijuana use from 92.6% to 60.5%; same for short-term residential 94.5% to 73.9%; same for outpatient 84.9% to 67.9%.  NA NA NA NA No between group differences, there were significant improvements in drug use from pre-treatment to 15-months post-treatment After the 6-month follow-up, both alcohol and marijuana prevalence incrased at each follow-up point. At 4-years post-intake, % using alcohol went from (intake) 91.4% to 66.0% (increase from 6-month follow-up was 50.7% to 66.0%). At 4-years post-intake, % using marijuana went from (intake) 84% to 44.4% (increase from 6-month follow-up was 35% to 44.4%). NA NA Pre to 12 month follow-up MDFT=9.85 to 4.39 (SD=3.77). AGT=8.90 to 5.57 (SD=2.82). MEI=10.29 to 7.65 (SD=3.18). 12 month comparisons: MDFT vs. MEI= 7.65 to 4.39 (SD=4.03). All are significant.  NA Drug use frequency (DUF) outcomes from pre to 12 months post. Intent to treat group: .25 to .19. OP group: .29 to .21. RES group: .20 to .15. Completers group: .32 to .23. Treatment noncompleters group: .03 to .03. No treatment group: .03 to .03. Abstinence at 1 year post, intent to treat=18.8%, RES=15.4%. OP=21.4%, Completers=23.4%, noncompleters=2.6%, no treatment=3.0%.  NA Young adults in the MST condition had significantly higher rates of marijuana abstinence (55% versus 28%) than did counterparts in the usual services condition. Rates of cocaine abstinence were not significantly different between treatment types. There was a statistically significant reduction in use (percent change, cutoff is using 5 or more times per year) for age 13-17 nonmethadone OP for using primary substance (-18%), age 13-17 long-term residential for primary substance (-22%), marijuana (-26%), cocaine (-43%), Any illicit substance (-22%), and drunk in past 30 days (-15%). There were also significant reductions in use for ages 18-20 for long-term residential , but not for OP. NR NR NA Significant decrease for total sample (both groups) at 12-months post-treatment in mean scale scores for drug use (5.0 to 4.0), drug use problems (3.7 to 2.8), and alcohol use (5.1 to 4.6; <.05), non-significant decrease in alcohol use problems (3.6 to 3.2). No statistical differences between groups in substance use outcomes. Mean changes (*=significant) in use from pre to 5 year post: *All treatment types alcohol use .80 to .92 (increase). All treatment types change in use of any illicit drug 5+ times .71 to .74 (slight increase). All treatment types change in marijuana use 5+ times .68 to .70 (slight increase). *ODF change in use of any illicit drug 5+ times .64 to .74 (increase). *All treatment types change in % of adolescent who sold drugs .34 to .42 (increase). No significant differences across treatment type.  NA Significant decrease in any alcohol use: 78.8% pre to 65.4% post; significant decrease in any marijuana use: 78.3% pre to 68.2% post; significant decrease in any drug use: 81.7% pre to 72.2% post. Also found significant differences between treatment completer group and non-completer group. Data out through five years will be forthcoming. Data reflects mean percentage of use (all significant) from 1 year prior to intake to 1 year post discharge, for under 17 age group (also reports findings on 18-19 year age group). Change in daily marijuana use for OP in tx 3 months+=.48 to .54 (increased), same change for in tx 3 months or less=.45 to .26. Change in marijuana use for Res for in tx 3 months or more .79 to .12, same for in tx 3 months or less .79 to .37. Change in heavy alcohol use in OP tx 3 months+=.54 to .41, same change for in tx 3 months or less=.50 to .34. Change in heavy alcohol use for Res tx 3 mo+=.56 to .29, same for in tx 3 months or less=.45 to .39. Change in reported drug-related problems in OP tx 3 months+=.88 to .51, same change for 3 months or less=.85 to .48.Change in reported drug-related problems in Res 3mo+=.84 to .33, same for 3 mo or less .84 to .57.  Economic Cost and Benefits NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Cost summarized in main source and detailed in: French, M. T., Roebuck, C., Dennis, M. L., Diamond, G., Godley, S. H., Tims, F., Webb, C., & Herrell, J. M. (2002). The economic cost of outpatient marijuana treatment for adolescents: Findings from a multisite field experiment. Addiction, Suppl. 1, 84-97. Benefit estimates forthcoming. NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Cost of MST compred to incarceration, hospitalization, and residential treatment reported in: Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Patel, H. (1996). Multisystemic therapy treatment of substance abusing or dependent adolescent offenders: Costs of reducing incarceration, inpatient, and residential placement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 431-444. Cost of MST compred to incarceration, hospitalization, and residential treatment reported in: Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Patel, H. (1996). Multisystemic therapy treatment of substance abusing or dependent adolescent offenders: Costs of reducing incarceration, inpatient, and residential placement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 431-444. NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR  NR Primary Source Harvey-Jansen, Z. (1995). Adolescent treatment: Excellence through evaluation. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. Alford, G. S., Koehler, R. A., & Leonard, J. (1991). Alcoholics Anonymous-Narcotics Anonymous model inpatient treatment of chemically dependent adolescents: A two-year outcome study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 118-126. Godley, M. D., Godley, S. H., Dennis, M. L., Funk, R., & Passetti, L. L. (2002). Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 21-32. Azrin, N. H., Donohue, B., Besalel, V. A., Kogan, E. S.,& Acierno, R. (1994). Youth drug abuse treatment: A controlled outcome study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 3, 1-16. Bergman, P.E., Smith, M.B., & Hoffman, N.G. (1995).  Adolescent treatment:  Implications for assessment, practices guidelines, and outcome management.  Substance Abuse, 42(2), 453-472. Kaminer, Y., & Burleson, J. A. (1999). Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: 15-month follow-up of a pilot study. American Journal on Addictions, 8, 114-119. Kaminer, Y., Burleson, J. A., & Goldberger, R. (2002). Cognitive-Behavioral coping skills and Psychoeducation therapies for adolescent substance abuse. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 737-745. Cornwall, A., & Blood, L. (1998). Inpatient versus day treatment for substance abusing adolescents. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186, 580-582. Szapoznik, J., Kurtines, W., Foote, F., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O. (1983). Conjoint versus one person family therapy: Some evidence for the effectiveness of conducting family therapy through one person. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 889-899. Dennis, M. L., Godley, S. H., Diamond, G., Tims, F. M., Babor, T., Donaldson, J., Liddle, H., Titus, J. C., Kaminer, Y., Webb, C. & Hamilton, N. (Under review). Main findings of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) randomized field experiment. Sells, S. B., & Simpson, D. D. (1979). Evaluation of treatment outcome for youths in the Drug Abuse Reporting Program (DARP): A follow-up Study. In G. M. Beschner & A. S. Friedman (Eds.), Youth drug abuse: Problems, issues, and treatment, (pp. 571-628). Lexington, MA: DC Health. Hser, Y., Grella, C. E., Hubbard, R. L., Hsieh, S., Fletcher, B. W., Brown, B. S., & Anglin, M. D. (2001). An evaluation of drug treatments for adolescents in 4 US cities. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 689-695.  Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K., Godley, M. D., & Funk, R. (2000, June). Predicting outcomes in adult and adolescent treatment with case mix vs. level of care: Findings from the Drug Outcome Monitoring Study. Panel presentation at the College for Problems on Drug Dependence, San Juan, PR. Joanning, H., Quinn, W., Thomas, F., & Mullen, R. (1992). Treating adolescent drug abuse: A comparison of family systems therapy, group therapy, and family drug education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18, 345-356. Cornelius, J.R., Bukstein, O.G., Birmaher, B., Salloum, I.M., Lynch, K., Pollack, N.K., Gershon, S., Clark, D. (2001). Fluoxetine in adolescents with major depression and an alcohol use disorder; an open label trial. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 735-739. Waldron, H. B., Slesnick, N., Brody, J. L., Turner, C. W., & Peterson, T. R. (2001). Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 802-813. Friedman, A. S. (1989). Family therapy vs. parent groups: Effects on adolescent drug abusers. American Journal of Family Therapy, 17, 335-347. Brown, S. A., D'Amico, E. J., & McCarthy, D. M. (2001). Four-year outcomes from adolescent alcohol and drug treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 381-388.  Azrin, N. H., Donohue, B., Teichner, G. A., Crum, T., Howell, J., & DeCato, L. A. (2001). A controlled evaluation and description of individual cognitive problem solving and family-behavior therapies in dually-diagnosed conduct-disordered and substance-dependent youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11, 1-43. Geller, B., Cooper, T. B., Kai, S., Zimmerman, B., Franzier, J., Williams, M., & Heath, J. (1998). Double-blind and placebo-controlled study of lithium for adolescent bipolar disorders with secondary substance dependency. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 171-178.  Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Parker, K., Diamond, G. S., Barrett, K., & Tejeda, M. (2001). Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent drug abuse: Results of a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol abuse, 27, 651-688. Dakof, G. A., Tejeda, M., & Liddle, H. A. (2001). Predictors of engagement in adolescent drug abuse treatment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 274-281. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., Opland, E., Weller, C., & Latimer, W. W. (2000). The effectiveness of the Minnesota Model approach in the treatment of adolescent drug abusers. Addiction, 95, 601-612. Henggeler, S. W., Borduin, C. M., Melton, G. B., Mann, B. J., Smith, L. A., Hall, J. A., Cone, L., & Fucci, B. R. (1991). Effects of multisystemic therapy on drug use and abuse in serious juvenile offenders: A progress report from two outcome studies. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly, 1, 40-51.   Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year follow-up of Multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 868-874.  Gerstein, D. R., & Johnson, R. A.. (1999). Adolescents and young adults in the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000). Adolescents and young adults in treatment. Available: www.health.org/nties/young/yungtext.htm Lewis, R. A., Piercy, F. P., Sprenkle, D. H., & Trepper, T.S. (1990). Family-based interventions for helping drug-abusing adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 50, 82-95. Spooner, C., Mattick, R. P., & Noffs, W. (2001). Outcomes of a comprehensive treatment program for adolescents with a substance-use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 205-213. Deas, D., Randall, C. L., Roberts, J. S., & Anton, R. F. (2000). A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sertraline in depressed adolescent alcoholics: A pilot study. Human Psychopharmacology, 15, 461-469. Amini, F., Zilberg, N. J., Burke, E. L., & Salasnek, S. (1982). A controlled study of inpatient versus outpatient drug abusing adolescents: One year results. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 23, 436-444. Office of Applied Studies (OAS). (1995). [On line]. Services Research Outcomes Study (SROS). Rockville, MD: SAMHSA. Available: http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/sros/httoc.htm. Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Brickman, A. L., Foote, F. H., Santisteban, D., Hervis, O, & Kurtines, W. M. (1988). Engaging adolescent drug abusers and their families in treatment: A strategic structural systems approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 552-557. Jainchill, N., Hawke, J., DeLeon, G., & Yagelka, J. (2000). Adolescents in Therapeutic Communities: One-year posttreatment outcomes. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32, 81-94.  Hubbard, R. L., Cavanaugh, E. R., Craddock, S. G., & Rachal, J. V. (1985). Characteristics, behaviors and outcomes for youth in the TOPS. In A. S. Friedman & G. M. Beschner (Eds.), Treatment services for adolescent substance abusers (pp. 49-65). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Additional References    Harrison, P.A., & Hoffmann, N. G. (1987). One-year outcome results for adolescents:  Key correlates and benefits of recovery. St. Paul, MN: CATOR/New Standards.    Hoffmann, N. G., & Kaplan, R. A. (1991). One-year outcome results for adolescents:  Key correlates and benefits of recovery. St. Paul, MN: CATOR/New Standards.    Hoffman, N.G., Mee-Lee, D., Arrowood, A.A. (1993).  Treatment issues in adolescent substance use and addiction:  Options, outcome, effectiveness, remibursement and admission criteria.  Adolescent medicine:  State of the Art Reviews, 4(2) 371-390.    Kaminer, Y., Burleson, J. A., Blitz, C., Sussman, J., & Rounsaville, B. J. (1998). Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: A pilot study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 186, 684-690.    Burleson, J. A., & Kaminer, Y. (2000). Cognitive behavioral versus psychoeducation therapy for adolescent substance abusers: Interim treatment outcome [Unpublished manuscript]. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut Health Center.    Kaminer, Y., Burleson, J. A., & Goldberger, R. (2001). Adolescent substance abuse treatment: Three- and nine-month post treatment outcomes. Unpublished manuscript. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut Health Center.      Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., Foote, F., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O. (1986). Conjoint versus one-person family therapy: Further evidence for the effectiveness of conducting family therapy through one person with drug-abusing adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 395-397. CONTINUATION OF MANUALS:     Liddle, H. (2002). Multidimensional Family Therapy Treatment (MDFT) for adolescent cannabis users. Volume 5 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 02-3660). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li/bookstore    Sampl, S., & Kadden, R. (2001). A 5 Session Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (MET-CBT-5) for adolescent cannabis users. Volume 1 of the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) manual series (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3486). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available from NCADI 1-800-SAY-NOTO and at www.chestnut.org/li/bookstore      Farabee, D., Shen, H., Hser, Y., Grella, C. E., & Anglin, M. D. (2001). The effect of drug treatment on criminal behavior among adolescents in DATOS-A. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 679-696.      Grella, C. E., Hser, Y., Joshi, V., & Rounds-Bryant, J. (2001). Drug treatment outcomes for adolescents with comorbid mental and substance use disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 384-392.      Godley, M. D., Godley, S. H., Funk, R. R., Dennis, M. L., & Loveland, D. (2001). Discharge status as a performance indicator: Can it predict adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome? Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11, 91-109.      Godley, S. H., Godley, M. D., & Dennis, M. L. (2001). The Assertive Aftercare Protocol for adolescent substance abusers. In E. Wagner & H. Waldron (Eds.), Innovations in adolescent substance abuse intervention