A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court

Multidimensional Family Therapy for Justice-Involved Young Adults with Substance Use Disorders

The present study explored the acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and outcomes of a young adult adaptation of multidimensional family therapy (MDFT), an evidence-based family treatment originally developed for adolescents. Participants included 22 individuals between the ages of 19 to 25 who were enrolled in a criminal drug court program. MDFT was found to be feasible and was delivered with strong fidelity to young adults and their families. Participants reported high satisfaction with MDFT, and 95% completed treatment. Analyses revealed statistically significant decreases in substance use on all indicators from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. Significant improvements were also noted in vocational functioning, including a 73% increase in full-time employment from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Criminal justice outcomes included a significant decrease in legal risk, and 86% of study participants had no rearrests from baseline through the 18-month follow-up period. The article concludes with recommendations for implementing family-based interventions with young adults, as well as future research directions in this important area.

Systemic therapy in children and adolescents with mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Systemic therapy (ST) is a psychotherapeutic intervention in complex human systems (both psychological and interpersonal). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an established treatment for children and adolescents with mental disorders. As methodologically rigorous systematic reviews on ST in this population are lacking, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefit and harm of ST (and ST as an add-on to CBT) with CBT in children and adolescents with mental disorders.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other sources for randomised controlled trials in 14 mental disorder classes for the above comparisons in respect of effects on patient-relevant outcomes (search date: 7/2022). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed and results were graded into 3 different evidence categories: "proof", "indication", or "hint" (or none of these categories). PRISMA standards were followed.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies in 5 mental disorder classes with usable data were identified. 2079 patients (mean age: 10 to 19 years) were analysed. 12/15 studies and 29/30 outcomes showed a high risk of bias. In 2 classes, statistically significant and clinically relevant effects in favour of ST were found, supporting the conclusion of a hint of greater benefit of ST for mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use and of ST as an add-on to CBT for obsessive-compulsive disorders. In 2 other classes (eating disorders; hyperkinetic disorders), there was no evidence of greater benefit or harm of ST. For affective disorders, a statistically significant effect to the disadvantage of ST was found for 1 outcome, supporting the conclusion of a hint of lesser benefit of ST.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a hint of greater benefit of ST (or ST as an add-on to CBT) compared with CBT for 2 mental disorder classes in children and adolescents (mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use, obsessive compulsive disorders). Given the importance of CBT as a control intervention, ST can therefore be considered a beneficial treatment option for children and adolescents with certain mental disorders. Limitations include an overall high risk of bias of studies and outcomes and a lack of data for several disorders.

"No Excuses Anymore": Substance Use Screening and Treatment for Justice-involved Youth

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to present best practices for substance use disorder (SUD) screening and treatment in the juvenile justice setting.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews, informed by the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior Model, were conducted with medical and behavioral health providers with experience caring for justice-involved youth. Interviews were analyzed using thematic and content analysis to elucidate best practices and identify facilitators and barriers affecting implementation of evidence-based substance use screening and treatment.

RESULTS

We interviewed 14 participants from 12 unique institutions and 9 states. All participants described the populations in their facilities as predominately male and minoritized, with substance use being an exceedingly common problem. Eight main themes emerged from analysis of the barriers and facilitators discussed by participants. These included the importance of (1) ensuring substance use-specific training for all team members, (2) integrating medical and behavioral health care, (3) addressing staff reticence and stigma, (4) building an institutional culture that supports screening and treatment, (5) dedicating adequate resources with respect to time, staffing, and funding, (6) formalizing and standardizing screening and treatment protocols, (7) engaging youth using trauma-informed approaches that emphasize youth strengths and autonomy, and (8) collaborating with multidisciplinary teams and community partners to maximize linkage to follow-up care after release.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight an urgent need for improved implementation of evidence-based, developmentally appropriate substance use treatment for justice-involved youth. Although the majority of participants screen youth, they described variable implementation of behavioral health interventions and limited provision of on-site withdrawal management and treatment using medications for SUD.

Effects of family therapy for substance abuse: A systematic review of recent research

One of the most serious psychosocial problems worldwide is substance abuse because of its repercussions not only on the physical and psychological health of the abuser but also on their relational functioning. Among the well-established therapeutic approaches for the treatment of substance abuse is family therapy, which, in addition to influencing personal variables, promotes changes in family dynamics. The main objective of this study is to review the scientific literature published from 2010 to the present on the efficacy and effectiveness shown by family-based treatment approaches for substance use problems both in adolescent and adult samples. In addition, the effect on secondary variables such as family functioning and behavioral problems is evaluated. The empirical evidence accumulated in the last decade and reviewed in the present study indicates that the incorporation of family members in the treatment of substance abuse produces benefits by diminishing consumption and improving family functioning. Limitations of this study and of the research reviewed are discussed and directions for future research are provided.

A modified measurement-based care approach to improve mental health treatment engagement among racial and ethnic minoritized youth

Despite high levels of need, racial and ethnic minoritized (REM) youth are much less likely than their White peers to engage in mental health treatment. Concerns about treatment relevance and acceptability and poor therapeutic alliance have been shown to impact treatment engagement, particularly retention, among REM youth and families. Measurement-based care (MBC) is a client-centered practice of collecting and using client-reported progress data throughout treatment to inform shared decision-making. MBC has been associated with increased client involvement in treatment, improved client-provider communication, and increased satisfaction with treatment services. Despite its promise as a treatment engagement strategy, MBC has not been studied in this capacity with REM youth or systematically modified to address the needs of culturally-diverse populations. In this article, we propose a culturally-modified version of MBC, Strategic Treatment Assessment with Youth (STAY), to improve treatment engagement among REM youth and families. Specifically, STAY is designed to target perceptual barriers to treatment to improve treatment retention and ultimately, client outcomes. The four STAY components (i.e., Introduce, Collect, Share, and Act) are based on an existing MBC practice framework and modified to address perceptual barriers to treatment among REM youth. The clinical application of this model is presented via a case example. Finally, future research directions to explore the use of MBC as a treatment retention strategy with REM client populations are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Long-Term Outcomes for Young People With Substance Use Problems in Outpatient Treatment: Gender-Specific Patterns

This study presents the results of a longitudinal research project focusing on long-term outcomes among young people after initiation of outpatient treatment for substance use problems (SUP) in Sweden. Young people are defined with the age group 13-25 years. A clinical sample of 451 young people (29% girls, median age 17 years) completed a structured interview at baseline and was followed using official records one, two, and 3 years after initiation of treatment. Gender-specific patterns at intake were described and bivariate associations and logistic regressions were calculated to analyse the links between risk factors at treatment start and indications of substance use problems 3 years later. Significantly more boys than girls displayed indications of continued SUP at 3-year follow-up. More specifically, 49% of the boys vs. 35% of the girls were identified through records as still having problems with substance use. Predictive risk factors also displayed gender-specific patterns. Primary drug use frequency and age at intake predicted indications of SUP among boys but not among girls. Placement in foster care/residential homes, depression, and early drug debut had significant predictive value regarding indications of SUP among females but not among males. Girls also displayed a greater psychosocial burden at treatment start, but a more favorable treatment outcome at follow-up. Youths with a heavy risk load at treatment start (i.e., over six risk factors) did not display a greater risk of SUP at 3-year follow-up, although our results suggest that this subgroup has indications of continued problems with mental health. Consequently, future studies should further explore gender-specific treatment pathways for young people with substance use problems. Since women and girls seem to have different risk factors, co-occurring psychiatric problems and more experiences of trauma compared to men, they might need multidimensional and more comprehensive treatment interventions that run over a longer period of time.

Treatment completion among justice-involved youth engaged in behavioral health treatment studies in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Justice-involved youth (JIY) have high rates of behavioral health disorders, but few can access, much less complete, treatment in the community. Behavioral health treatment completion among JIY is poorly understood, even within treatment studies. Measurement, reporting, and rates of treatment completion vary across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on rates of treatment completion among JIY enrolled in research studies and identifies potential moderators. After systematically searching 6 electronic databases, data from 13 studies of 20 individual treatment groups were abstracted and coded. A meta-analysis examined individual prevalence estimates of treatment completion in research studies as well as moderator analyses. Prevalence effect sizes revealed high rates of treatment completion (pr = 82.6). However, analysis suggests a high likelihood that publication bias affected the results. Treatment groups that utilized family- or group-based treatment (pr = 87.8) were associated with higher rates of treatment completion compared to treatment groups utilizing individual treatment (pr = 61.1). Findings suggest that it is possible to achieve high rates of treatment completion for JIY, particularly within the context of family- and group-based interventions. However, these findings are limited by concerns about reporting of treatment completion and publication bias.

Couple and family therapy for substance use disorders: Evidence-based update 2010-2019

This article updates the evidence-based on couple and family therapy interventions for substance use disorders (SUD) since publication of the previous JMFT reviews in 2012. It first summarizes previous reviews along with findings from more recent reviews and meta-analytic studies. It then presents study design and methods criteria used to select 13 studies of couple and family therapy for level of support evaluation. Cumulative level of support designations are then determined for identified treatment approaches. Findings indicate that systemic family therapy is well-established as a standalone treatment, and behavioral family therapy and behavioral couple therapy are probably efficacious as standalone treatments and well-established as part of a multicomponent treatment. The article then suggests practice guidelines with regard to treatment modality considerations and implementation challenges. It concludes with future directions for delivering couple and family interventions in routine systems of care for SUD.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Juvenile Drug Treatment Court

Juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs) were established in the 1990s to reduce the cycle of crime, drug use, and delinquency among youthful offenders. The principles and guidelines underlying JDTCs, roles of multidisciplinary team members, and procedures common to JDTCs are described. Youth served by JDTCs are frequently male, identify as racial or ethnic minorities, come from impoverished backgrounds, and experience significant psychiatric comorbidity. This article reviews the small number of clinical trials that have examined adjunctive treatments using family-based and individual behavioral treatment approaches designed to improve the overall efficacy of JDTCs. Considerations for future research on JDTCs are described.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Drug courts aim to significantly address drug abuse and drug-related criminality. However, the effectiveness of drug courts varies from court to court. The variation of success demands insights regarding what is going on inside the "black box" of drug court practices. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent drug courts are operated in adherence with guiding principles and strategies. Using a national sample and validated measures, the current article examines the "black boxes" of adult and juvenile drug courts across the country. We found that, in general, adult drug courts face less model adherence challenges in comparison with juvenile courts, which may, in part, explain why adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts overall.

Individual-, family-, and school-level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people

BACKGROUND

Engagement in multiple risk behaviours can have adverse consequences for health during childhood, during adolescence, and later in life, yet little is known about the impact of different types of interventions that target multiple risk behaviours in children and young people, or the differential impact of universal versus targeted approaches. Findings from systematic reviews have been mixed, and effects of these interventions have not been quantitatively estimated.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of interventions implemented up to 18 years of age for the primary or secondary prevention of multiple risk behaviours among young people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 11 databases (Australian Education Index; British Education Index; Campbell Library; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; Embase; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; and Sociological Abstracts) on three occasions (2012, 2015, and 14 November 2016)). We conducted handsearches of reference lists, contacted experts in the field, conducted citation searches, and searched websites of relevant organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs, which aimed to address at least two risk behaviours. Participants were children and young people up to 18 years of age and/or parents, guardians, or carers, as long as the intervention aimed to address involvement in multiple risk behaviours among children and young people up to 18 years of age. However, studies could include outcome data on children > 18 years of age at the time of follow-up. Specifically,we included studies with outcomes collected from those eight to 25 years of age. Further, we included only studies with a combined intervention and follow-up period of six months or longer. We excluded interventions aimed at individuals with clinically diagnosed disorders along with clinical interventions. We categorised interventions according to whether they were conducted at the individual level; the family level; or the school level.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified a total of 34,680 titles, screened 27,691 articles and assessed 424 full-text articles for eligibility. Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.We pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) model in RevMan 5.3. For each outcome, we included subgroups related to study type (individual, family, or school level, and universal or targeted approach) and examined effectiveness at up to 12 months' follow-up and over the longer term (> 12 months). We assessed the quality and certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review a total of 70 eligible studies, of which a substantial proportion were universal school-based studies (n = 28; 40%). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 55; 79%). On average, studies aimed to prevent four of the primary behaviours. Behaviours that were most frequently addressed included alcohol use (n = 55), drug use (n = 53), and/or antisocial behaviour (n = 53), followed by tobacco use (n = 42). No studies aimed to prevent self-harm or gambling alongside other behaviours.Evidence suggests that for multiple risk behaviours, universal school-based interventions were beneficial in relation to tobacco use (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.97; n = 9 studies; 15,354 participants) and alcohol use (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92; n = 8 studies; 8751 participants; both moderate-quality evidence) compared to a comparator, and that such interventions may be effective in preventing illicit drug use (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; n = 5 studies; 11,058 participants; low-quality evidence) and engagement in any antisocial behaviour (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; n = 13 studies; 20,756 participants; very low-quality evidence) at up to 12 months' follow-up, although there was evidence of moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 49% to 69%). Moderate-quality evidence also showed that multiple risk behaviour universal school-based interventions improved the odds of physical activity (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50; I² = 0%; n = 4 studies; 6441 participants). We considered observed effects to be of public health importance when applied at the population level. Evidence was less certain for the effects of such multiple risk behaviour interventions for cannabis use (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06; n = 5 studies; 4140 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), sexual risk behaviours (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12; P = 0.22; n = 6 studies; 12,633 participants; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence), and unhealthy diet (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.13; n = 3 studies; 6441 participants; I² = 49%; moderate-quality evidence). It is important to note that some evidence supported the positive effects of universal school-level interventions on three or more risk behaviours.For most outcomes of individual- and family-level targeted and universal interventions, moderate- or low-quality evidence suggests little or no effect, although caution is warranted in interpretation because few of these studies were available for comparison (n ≤ 4 studies for each outcome).Seven studies reported adverse effects, which involved evidence suggestive of increased involvement in a risk behaviour among participants receiving the intervention compared to participants given control interventions.We judged the quality of evidence to be moderate or low for most outcomes, primarily owing to concerns around selection, performance, and detection bias and heterogeneity between studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence is strongest for universal school-based interventions that target multiple- risk behaviours, demonstrating that they may be effective in preventing engagement in tobacco use, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and antisocial behaviour, and in improving physical activity among young people, but not in preventing other risk behaviours. Results of this review do not provide strong evidence of benefit for family- or individual-level interventions across the risk behaviours studied. However, poor reporting and concerns around the quality of evidence highlight the need for high-quality multiple- risk behaviour intervention studies to further strengthen the evidence base in this field.

Multidimensional family therapy in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: long-term effects on delinquency in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Substance use and delinquency are considered to be mutual risk factors. Previous studies have shown that multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) is effective in tackling both conditions on the short term. The current study examines the long-term effects of MDFT on criminal offending.

METHODS

109 adolescents with cannabis use disorder and comorbid problem behavior were randomly assigned to either MDFT or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Police arrest data were collected for 6 years: 3 years prior to and 3 years after treatment entry. Using survival analysis and repeated measure General Linear Models (rmGLM), the two treatment groups were compared on number of arrests, type of offence, and severity of offence. Moderator analyses looking at age, disruptive behavior disorders, history of crimes, family functioning, and (severe) cannabis use were conducted (rmGLM).

RESULTS

While police arrest rates increased in the 3 years before treatment, the rates decreased substantially after the start of both treatments. No differences were found between the treatment groups with respect to either time to first offence from the start of the treatment or changes in frequency or severity of offending over time. A treatment effect trend favoring MDFT was found for property offending in the subgroup of adolescents with high baseline-severity of cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS

Across a follow-up period of 3 years, MDFT and CBT were similarly effective in reducing delinquency in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder.Trial registration ISRCTN51014277, Registered 17 March 2010-Retrospectively registered, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN51014277.

A scoping review and meta-analysis of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis and tobacco use among African Americans

The rates of co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use are higher among African Americans relative to other racial/ethnic groups. One plausible approach to treating co-use among African Americans is to examine the effectiveness of treatments for the sole use of cannabis and tobacco to identify effective approaches that might be combined to treat the dual use of these substances. The current meta-analysis sought to include studies that reported cannabis and/or tobacco use outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 100% African American samples. A total of 843 articles were considered for inclusion, 29 were reviewed by independent qualitative coders, and 22 were included in the review. There were no articles on cannabis use treatment with a 100% African American sample, resulting in a need to lower the threshold (60%) and conduct a scoping review of cannabis studies. Preliminary evidence from a small number of studies (k = 7) supports the use of Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy to treat cannabis use among African Americans, but not Contingency Management. Results from a meta-analysis of 15 tobacco studies found higher rates of smoking abstinence in the treatment condition relative to control conditions overall and across short and long-term follow-up periods. Significant differences in smoking abstinence were also found when examining the effects of pharmacological treatments relative to their control conditions. The clinical and research implications of these findings for future psychosocial and pharmacological trials for cannabis and tobacco use and co-use among African Americans are described. (PsycINFO Database Record

Evidence Base on Outpatient Behavioral Treatments for Adolescent Substance Use, 2014-2017: Outcomes, Treatment Delivery, and Promising Horizons

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 Hogue, Henderson, Ozechowski, and Robbins (2014). It first summarizes the Hogue et al. findings along with those from recent literature reviews and meta-analytic studies of ASU treatments. It then presents study design and methods criteria used to select 11 comparative studies subjected to Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology level of support evaluation. These 11 studies are detailed in terms of their sample characteristics, methodological quality, and substance use outcomes. Cumulative level of support designations are then made for each identified treatment approach. These cumulative designations are virtually identical to those of the previous review: ecological family-based treatment, individual cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group cognitive-behavioral therapy remain well-established; behavioral family-based treatment and motivational interviewing remain probably efficacious; drug counseling remains possibly efficacious; and an updated total of 5 multicomponent treatments combining more than 1 approach (3 of which include contingency management) are deemed well-established or probably efficacious. Treatment delivery issues associated with evidence-based approaches are then reviewed, focusing on client engagement, fidelity and mediator, and predictor and moderator effects. Finally, to help accelerate innovation in ASU treatment science and practice, the article outlines promising horizons in improving youth identification and access, specifying and implementing pragmatic treatment in community settings, and leveraging emerging lessons from implementation science.

Multidimensional Family Therapy Reduces Self-Reported Criminality Among Adolescents With a Cannabis Use Disorder

Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) is an established treatment program for youth displaying multiproblem behavior. We examined whether MDFT decreased criminal offending among cannabis abusing adolescents, as compared with individual psychotherapy (IP). In a Western European randomized controlled trial comparing MDFT with IP, a sample of 169 adolescents with a cannabis disorder completed self-reports on criminal offending. Half indicated they had committed one or more criminal offenses in the 90 days before the baseline assessment. Follow-up assessments were at 6 and 12 months after randomization. The proportion of adolescents reporting nondelinquency increased during the study period, most so in the MDFT condition. In addition, MDFT lowered the number of violent offenses more than IP. This difference was not seen for property crimes. In cannabis abusing adolescents, MDFT is an effective treatment to prevent and reduce criminal offending. MDFT outperforms IP for violent crimes.

Research Review: The effectiveness of multidimensional family therapy in treating adolescents with multiple behavior problems - a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) is a well-established treatment for adolescents showing both substance abuse and/or antisocial behavior.

METHOD

The effectiveness of MDFT in reducing adolescents' substance abuse, delinquency, externalizing and internalizing psychopathology, and family malfunctioning was examined by means of a (three-level) meta-analysis, summarizing 61 effect sizes from 19 manuscripts (N = 1,488 participants).

RESULTS

Compared with other therapies, the overall effect size of MDFT was significant, albeit small in magnitude (d = 0.24, p < .001), and similar across intervention outcome categories. Moderator analysis revealed that adolescents with high severity problems, including severe substance abuse and disruptive behavior disorder, benefited more from MDFT than adolescents with less severe conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that MDFT is effective for adolescents with substance abuse, delinquency, and comorbid behavior problems. Subsequently, it is important to match specific characteristics of the adolescents, such as extent of impairment, with MDFT.

Family-based Treatments for Adolescent Substance Use

Adolescent substance use is a major risk factor for negative outcomes, including substance dependence later in life, criminal behavior, school problems, mental health disorders, injury, and death. This article provides a user-friendly, clinically focused, and pragmatic review of current and evidence-based family treatments, including multisystemic therapy, multidimensional family therapy, functional family therapy, brief strategic family therapy, ecologically based family therapy, family behavior therapy, culturally informed flexible family treatment for adolescents, and strengths-oriented family therapy. Outcomes, treatment parameters, adolescent characteristics, and implementation factors are reviewed.

Family-Centered Care in Juvenile Justice Institutions: A Mixed Methods Study Protocol

Background

Treatment and rehabilitation interventions in juvenile justice institutions aim to prevent criminal reoffending by adolescents and to enhance their prospects of successful social reintegration. There is evidence that these goals are best achieved when the institution adopts a family-centered approach, involving the parents of the adolescents. The Academic Workplace Forensic Care for Youth has developed two programs for family-centered care for youth detained in groups for short-term and long-term stay, respectively.

Objective

The overall aim of our study is to evaluate the family-centered care program in the first two years after the first steps of its implementation in short-term stay groups of two juvenile justice institutions in the Netherlands. The current paper discusses our study design.

Methods

Based on a quantitative pilot study, we opted for a study with an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. This pilot is considered the first stage of our study. The second stage of our study includes concurrent quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative part of our study is a pre-post quasi-experimental comparison of family-centered care with usual care in short-term stay groups. The qualitative part of our study involves in-depth interviews with adolescents, parents, and group workers to elaborate on the preceding quantitative pilot study and to help interpret the outcomes of the quasi-experimental quantitative part of the study.

Results

We believe that our study will result in the following findings. In the quantitative comparison of usual care with family-centered care, we assume that in the latter group, parents will be more involved with their child and with the institution, and that parents and adolescents will be more motivated to take part in therapy. In addition, we expect family-centered care to improve family interactions, to decrease parenting stress, and to reduce problem behavior among the adolescents. Finally, we assume that adolescents, parents, and the staff of the institutions will be more satisfied with family-centered care than with usual care. In the qualitative part of our study, we will identify the needs and expectations in family-centered care as well as factors influencing parental participation. Insight in these factors will help to further improve our program of family-centered care and its implementation in practice. Our study results will be published over the coming years.

Conclusions

A juvenile justice institution is a difficult setting to evaluate care programs. A combination of practice-based research methods is needed to address all major implementation issues. The study described here takes on the challenge by means of practice-based research. We expect the results of our study to contribute to the improvement of care for adolescents detained in juvenile justice institutions, and for their families.

Multidimensional Family Therapy: Evidence Base for Transdiagnostic Treatment Outcomes, Change Mechanisms, and Implementation in Community Settings

This article summarizes the 30+-year evidence base of Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT), a comprehensive treatment for youth substance abuse and antisocial behaviors. Findings from four types of MDFT studies are discussed: hybrid efficacy/effectiveness randomized controlled trials, therapy process studies, cost analyses, and implementation trials. This research has evaluated various versions of MDFT. These studies have systematically tested adaptations of MDFT for diverse treatment settings in different care sectors (mental health, substance abuse, juvenile justice, and child welfare), as well as adaptations according to treatment delivery features and client impairment level, including adolescents presenting with multiple psychiatric diagnoses. Many published scientific reviews, including meta-analyses, national and international government publications, and evidence-based treatment registries, offer consistent conclusions about the clinical effectiveness of MDFT compared with standard services as well as active treatments. The diverse and continuing MDFT research, the favorable, multi-source independent evaluations, combined with the documented receptivity of youth, parents, community-based clinicians and administrators, and national and international MDFT training programs (U.S.-based organization is MDFT International, www.mdft.org; and Europe-based organization is www.mdft.nl) all support the potential for continued transfer of MDFT to real-world clinical settings.

An independent replication of the Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach with justice-involved youth

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders among youth remain a serious public health problem. Although research has overwhelmingly supported the use of evidenced-based interventions, one of the primary limitations of the current evidence base is that for the vast majority of treatments, the developers of the treatments are also the ones conducting research on them, raising the possibility of allegiance bias.

METHODS

The present study was an independently conducted randomized controlled trial (n = 126) comparing an evidenced-based treatment for adolescent substance use, Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), and assertive continuing care (ACC), to services as usual (SAU) provided by a juvenile probation department. Latent growth curve modeling was used to compare the treatments on change in substance use assessed by the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment entry.

RESULTS

All youth evidenced a substantial reduction in substance use frequency and substance-related problems following treatment; however, youth treated with A-CRA/ACC evidenced a substantially greater decrease in substance-related problems.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Results are consistent with studies conducted by A-CRA/ACC model developers supporting the effectiveness of the clinical approach and, because the outcomes resulted from an independent replication, are encouraging for the transportation potential of A-CRA/ACC.

Gender and ethnicity as moderators: Integrative data analysis of multidimensional family therapy randomized clinical trials

This study examined gender and ethnicity as moderators of Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) effectiveness for adolescent drug abuse and illustrated the utility of integrative data analysis (IDA; Bauer & Hussong, 2009) for assessing moderation. By pooling participant data from 5 independent MDFT randomized clinical trials (RCTs), IDA increased power to test moderation. Participants were 646 adolescents receiving treatment for drug use, aged 11 to 17 years (M = 15.31, SD = 1.30), with 19% female (n = 126), 14% (n = 92) European American, 35% (n = 225) Hispanic, and 51% (n = 329) African American. Participants were randomized to MDFT or active comparison treatments, which varied by study. Drug use involvement (i.e., frequency and consequences) was measured at study entry, 6-, and 12-months by a 4-indicator latent variable. Growth curve change parameters from multiple calibration samples were regressed on treatment effects overall and by moderator subgroups. MDFT reduced drug use involvement (p < .05) for all participant groups. Pooled comparison groups reduced drug use involvement only for females and Hispanics (ps < .05). MDFT was more effective than comparisons for males, African Americans, and European Americans (ps <.05; Cohen's d = 1.17, 1.95, and 1.75, respectively). For females and Hispanics, there were no significant differences between MDFT and pooled comparison treatments, Cohen's d = 0.63 and 0.19, respectively. MDFT is an effective treatment for drug use among adolescents of both genders and varied ethnicity with males, African American, and European American non-Hispanic adolescents benefitting most from MDFT.

Beyond recidivism: changes in health and social service involvement following exposure to drug treatment court

Background

The majority of Drug Treatment Court (DTC) research has examined the impact of DTCs on criminal recidivism. Comparatively little research has addressed the association between DTC participation and engagement with community-based health and social services. The present study investigated changes in participant involvement with outpatient healthcare and income assistance within a DTC cohort. We hypothesized that involvement with community-based (outpatient) health and social services would increase post-DTC participation, and that service levels would be higher among program graduates and offenders with histories of co-occurring mental and substance use disorders.

Methods

Participants were 631 offenders at the DTC in Vancouver, Canada (DTCV). Administrative data representing hospital, outpatient medical care, and income assistance were examined one-year pre/post program to assess differences over time. Generalized estimating equations were used to investigate the association between changes in service use and program involvement. We also examined the relationship between level of service use and offender characteristics.

Results

Members of the cohort were disproportionately Aboriginal (33 %), had been sentenced 2.7 times in the 2 years preceding their index offence, and 50 % had been diagnosed with a non substance-related mental disorder in the five years preceding the index offence. The mean number of outpatient services post DTCV was 51, and the mean amount of social assistance paid was $5,897. Outpatient service use increased following exposure to DTCV (Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR) = 1.45) and was significantly higher among women (ARR = 1.47), program graduation (ARR = 1.23), and those previously diagnosed with concurrent substance use and mental disorders (ARR = 4.92). Overall, hospital admissions did not increase post-program, although rates were significantly higher among women (ARR = 1.76) and those with concurrent disorders (ARR = 2.71). Income assistance increased significantly post program (ARR = 1.16), and was significantly higher among women (ARR = 1.03), and those diagnosed with substance use disorders (ARR = 1.42) and concurrent disorders (ARR = 1.72).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the DTCV was a catalyst for increased participant engagement with community health and social supports, and that rates of service use were consistently higher among women and individuals with concurrent disorders. Research is needed to investigate the potential link between health and social support and reductions in recidivism associated with DTCs.

Risks, Outcomes, and Evidence-Based Interventions for Girls in the US Juvenile Justice System

The proportion of the juvenile justice population that comprises females is increasing, yet few evidence-based models have been evaluated and implemented with girls in the juvenile justice system. Although much is known about the risk and protective factors for girls who participate in serious delinquency, significant gaps in the research base hamper the development and implementation of theoretically based intervention approaches. In this review, we first summarize the extant empirical work about the predictors and sequelae of juvenile justice involvement for girls. Identified risk and protective factors that correspond to girls' involvement in the juvenile justice system have been shown to largely parallel those of boys, although exposure rates and magnitudes of association sometimes differ by sex. Second, we summarize findings from empirically validated, evidence-based interventions for juvenile justice-involved youths that have been tested with girls. The interventions include Functional Family Therapy, Multisystemic Therapy, Multidimensional Family Therapy, and Treatment Foster Care Oregon (formerly known as Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care). We conclude that existing evidence-based practices appear to be effective for girls. However, few studies have been sufficiently designed to permit conclusions about whether sex-specific interventions would yield any better outcomes for girls than would interventions that already exist for both sexes and that have a strong base of evidence to support them. Third, we propose recommendations for feasible, cost-efficient next steps to advance the research and intervention agendas for this under-researched and underserved population of highly vulnerable youths.