Dennis, M. L., Godley, S. H., Diamond, G. S., Tims, F. M., Babor, T., Donaldson, J., Liddle, H., Titus, J. C., Kaminer, Y., Webb, C., Hamilton, N., & Funk, R. R. (2004). The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) study: Main findings from two randomized trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27(3), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2003.09.005

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 600

Population:

• Age — 13-18 years
• Race/Ethnicity — 61% Caucasian/White, 30% African American/Black, 6% Other/Mixed, and 4% Hispanic/Latino
• Gender — 83% Male
• Status — Participants were adolescents and their families who were recruited from sequential admissions to 4 treatment sites.

Location/Institution: Farmington, CT/University of Connecticut Health Center, Madison County, IL/Chestnut Health Systems, Philadelphia, PA/Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and St. Petersburg, FL/Operation PAR

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 5 short-term outpatient interventions for adolescents with cannabis use disorders, including Motivational Enhancement Therapy/Cognitive Behavior Therapy – 5 Sessions (MET/CBT5), in two trials. Trial I compared MET/CBT5 with a 12-session regimen of MET and CBT (MET/CBT12) and another that included family education and therapy components (Family Support Network [FSN]). Participants were randomly assigned to either MET/CBT5, MET/CBT12, or FSN. Trial II compared the MET/CBT5 with the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) and Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT). Participants were randomly assigned to either MET/CBT5, A-CRA, or MDFT. Measures utilized include the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN). Results indicate that all five CYT interventions demonstrated significant pre-post treatment improvements during the 12 months after random assignment to a treatment intervention in the two main outcomes: days of abstinence and the percent of adolescents in recovery (no use or abuse/dependence problems and living in the community). Overall, the clinical outcomes were very similar across sites and conditions; however, after controlling for initial severity, the most cost-effective interventions were MET/CBT5 and MET/CBT12 in Trial 1 and ACRA and MET/CBT5 in Trial 2. Limitations include the reliance on participant self-report and the lack of a no-treatment control group.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: Approximately 8-11 months.

Mason, M. J., & Posner, M. A. (2009). Brief substance abuse treatment with urban adolescents: A translational research study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 18(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10678280902724184

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental)
Number of Participants: 102

Population:

• Age — 13-20 years (Mean=16 years)
• Race/Ethnicity — 44% White, 36% African American, 11% Mixed/Other, and 9% Hispanic
• Gender — 80% Male and 20% Female
• Status — Participants were enrolled in a brief, manualized substance abuse treatment program between January 2004 and September 2006 and were referred by health care providers, schools, and the juvenile justice system.

Location/Institution: Philadelphia, PA

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The comparison group is drawn from the sample in the Dennis et al. (2004) study. The purpose of this translational research study was to Motivational Enhancement Therapy/Cognitive Behavior Therapy - 5 Sessions (MET/CBT5)] protocol's effects in an urban community test a brief, manualized adolescent substance abuse treatment setting compared to a sample in an experimental study from which the treatment was first employed. Participants in the community group were adolescents who were treated with MET/CBT5 and followed for six months post-intake. Comparison group data were drawn from participants in the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Study (Dennis et al., 2004) who received MET/CBT5. The Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) assessment was used to measure substance use and mental health. Results showed that, by month 6, alcohol use for the comparison group increased 0.72 days while alcohol use for the community group decreased 0.58 days. Limitations include the lack of randomization, lack of control group, and reliability on self-reported measures.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: Up to 12 months posttreatment.

Belur, V., Dennis, M. L., Ives, M. L., Vincent, R., & Muck, R. (2014). Feasibility and impact of implementing Motivational Enhancement Therapy–Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as a substance use treatment intervention in school-based settings. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 7(2), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2014.888223

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial
Number of Participants: 2,905

Population:

• Age — SB: Mean=14.86 years; CB: Mean=15.76 years
• Race/Ethnicity — SB: 50% Caucasian, 30% Hispanic, 14% Mixed/other, and 5% African-American; CB: 58% Caucasian, 17% Hispanic, 17% Mixed/Other, and 8% African-American
• Gender — SB: 38% Female; CB: 29% Female
• Status — Participants were adolescents with substance use disorders.

Location/Institution: 37 substance use disorder treatment sites across 21 states in the Midwest, Southwest, Southeast, Eastern, and Pacific regions of the USA

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to explore the feasibility of implementing sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy–Cognitive Behavioral Therapy – 5 Sessions (MET/CBT5) in school settings relative to a matched cohort of implementing sessions of MET/CBT5 in community-based settings (CB). Measures utilized include the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) and the Treatment Transition Log. Results indicate that MET/CBT5 in school settings is feasible, effective, and cost-effective. Limitations include use of recruitment source and assessment location as an indicator that school-based settings were being used for intervention delivery; client reports to assess the quality of the intervention received; and not assessing for socioeconomic status.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 6 months.

Griffin, B. A., Ayer, L., Pane, J., Vegetabile, B., Burgette, L., McCaffrey, D., Coffman, D. L., Cefalu, M., Funk, R., & Godley, M. D. (2020). Expanding outcomes when considering the relative effectiveness of two evidence-based outpatient treatment programs for adolescents. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 118, Article 108075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108075

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental
Number of Participants: 10,152

Population:

• Age — A-CRA: Mean=15.6 years; MET/CBT5: Mean=14.5 years
• Race/Ethnicity — A-CRA: 32% White/Caucasian, 21% Other, and 16% Black/African-American; MET/CBT5: 51% White/Caucasian, 17% Other, and 10% Black/African-American
• Gender — A-CRA: 27% Female; MET/CBT5: 30% Female
• Status — Participants were youth receiving substance use disorder treatment.

Location/Institution: A-CRA or MET/CBT5 treatment programs, United States

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations)
The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of two treatment programs (Motivational Enhancement Treatment/Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 5 Sessions [MET/CBT5] and Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]) for both substance use and mental health outcomes. Measures utilized include the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN). Results indicate that after applying balancing weighting to ensure similarity of the baseline samples, both groups significantly improved on the two substance use outcomes (days abstinent and percent of youth in recovery) and on the two mental health outcomes (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] symptoms and general emotional problems). Youth in A-CRA were significantly more likely to be in recovery at the 3-month follow-up compared to youth in MET/CBT5, but the size of this effect was very small. Youth receiving MET/CBT5 appeared to show significantly more improvement in the two mental health measures compared to youth in A-CRA, though these effect sizes were also very small. Limitations include lack of no-treatment or treatment-as-usual control group, lack of post-intervention follow-up, and low follow-up response rates.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.