The Impact of Motivational Interviewing on Delinquent Behaviors in Incarcerated Adolescents

Implementation of Substance Use Services to Justice-Involved Youth: Examining Barriers, Facilitators, and Best Practices

Justice-involved youth are known to be at elevated risk of substance use disorder (SUD). This review examines literature published over a 10-year period and summarizes evidence-based practices for screening, treatment, and linkage to care for justice-involved youth as well as barriers and facilitators that may arise during implementation. Strategies to incorporate a health equity lens and trauma-informed approaches are discussed. Despite high prevalence of substance use and research showing that treatment reduces recidivism, few juvenile justice systems universally screen and treat youth with SUD. There is limited developmentally appropriate guidance available for those seeking to better address substance use in juvenile justice settings. This review highlights gaps in the literature, which must be addressed to increase access to treatment and improve outcomes for this vulnerable youth population.

"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.

Link for Equity, a community-engaged waitlist randomized controlled trial of a culturally responsive trauma-informed care program for BIPOC students: Design features and characteristics of baseline sample

BACKGROUND

Link for Equity is a multi-tiered, school-based program of trauma-informed care and cultural humility designed to reduce the impact of Adverse Child Experiences among Black Indigenous and other children of color (BIPOC). This report describes the program, its trial design, and the study participants' baseline characteristics.

METHODS

We designed a nested waitlist-controlled trial to evaluate Link for Equity's effectiveness in reducing school violence among BIPOC students. Three pairs of school districts, matched on suspension rates and enrollment of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native children, were randomized into either an intervention or delayed intervention (waitlist control) group. A community-engaged approach guided the development of protocols. Within intervention sites, BIPOC students who screened positive for ACEs or posttraumatic stress were also randomized into an immediate and waitlist control group to receive additional one-on-one support from trained school staff.

RESULTS

The trial was implemented from 2019 to 2021, which overlapped with the pandemic and civil unrest in Minnesota. At baseline, 444 staff and 188 students enrolled in the study. Over a quarter of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 18% of multiple race, 12% of Black/African American, 14% of Hispanic/Latinx students reported 4+ ACEs. Between 44 and 53% of all the BIPOC students in the study were symptomatic for PTSD. Of the enrolled students, 78.7% qualified for one-on-one Link support.

CONCLUSION

We implemented a multilevel waitlist-controlled trial of Link for Equity using community-engaged methods. Despite school closures during the pandemic, the study persisted with its methods now being employed in an expanded cohort of middle schools.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04026477, NCT04026490).

A comparison of health behaviours in male adolescents with and without offending histories referred for adolescent health services in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Offending and incarceration are important societal problems that might be reduced by improving early intervention. Most prior work identifying risk factors has focussed on early oppositional or aggressive behaviours and environmental problems. Among adults, it is well recognised that offenders have much poorer health than the wider population. This raises questions about whether behaviours that put health at risk while a teenager may also be good markers of subsequent offending.

AIMS

To examine the relationship between risky health behaviours and delinquency by comparing male teenage offenders with a history of incarceration and male teenagers with no criminal involvement.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 66 male 12-18-year-old offenders with an incarceration history who were referred for evaluation to the Forensic Medicine Polyclinic in 2021 were compared with 74 similar aged adolescents without a criminal record but attending another clinic in the same hospital, using the Risky Health Behaviour Scale (RHBS). This covers dietary, road safety and sexual behaviours as well as exercise, substance use and violent behaviours. Negative items were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated more pro-health activities.

RESULTS

Total RHBS scores were significantly lower among the offender-group than the comparison teenagers (Means 93.19 ± 17.00: 107.20 ± 10.83; p ≤ 0.001). This reflected significant differences in each of the subscale scores except dietary and risky sexual behaviour. Only substance use behaviours, however, were independently related to offender group membership, as was family socio-economic status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add indications of risky health-related behaviours to the already extensive literature on risky social behaviours in the history of young offenders. It is possible that focussing on young offenders referred to a health service, albeit one primarily directed at mental health, has exaggerated such differences, but if substantiated in larger and more diverse samples, these findings may open new avenues for early identification of young people at risk of offending and commensurate early interventions. Focus on substance use by young people seems especially important, but low family socio-economic status needs remedies too.

Stigmatization and Social Functioning Levels of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorders

AIM

The aim of this stu dy was to determine the levels of internalized stigma and social functioning of patients with alcohol use disorders.

METHOD

The study is cross-sectional and descriptive. The data were collected between August 2017 and August 2018 using face-to-face interviews with 104 alcohol-dependent patients who were undergoing inpatient treatment. The data collection was done so through personal information forms, the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale (ISMIS), and the Social Functioning Scale (SFS). Descriptive statistics, t test, and correlation analysis were used in evaluating data.

RESULTS

Analysis of the sociodemographic characteristics of the patients showed that the mean age was 47.28 ± 10.10 years and 92.3% of the patients were male. The mean age of patients when they first started drinking alcohol is 19.37 ± 6.25 years. It was determined that 85.5% of the patients were also cigarette smokers, 37.5% were previously treated because of alcohol dependence, and 34.6% are currently having legal problems. Patients' ISMIS mean score was 71.99 ± 13.78, and the mean scores of subscales were moderate. In SFS, the mean scores of the "preliminary social activity" and "leisure activities" subscales and the total scale scores were at a moderate level and those of the other subscales (social withdrawal, interpersonal functionality, independent competence, independent performance, job-profession) were below average. As the ISMIS mean score increases, the SFS subscales' mean scores decrease (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Alcohol-dependent patients negatively stigmatize themselves, and the functionality of their prosocial activity skills, along with their recreational activities, is inadequate. Furthermore, as ISMIS tends to increase, SFS (interpersonal functioning, prosocial activities, recreational activities, independence-performance) levels decrease.

Motivational Interviewing in Child Welfare Services: A Systematic Review

Families in the child welfare (CW) system who cannot be engaged in services are at high risk of negative outcomes. As motivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to improve engagement in similar contexts. This study aimed to systematically review MI with CW families as well as MI training with CW workers and social work students training to become CW workers. The review used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched multiple databases in June 2018. In September 2019, the initial search was repeated with additional searches to identify gray literature. Eight studies described the acquisition of MI among CW workers or student trainees, and 11 studies evaluated the impact of MI on families in CW. MI's impact on some family outcomes, such as engagement in services, was mixed, though MI paired with other evidence-based treatments showed positive effects. With regard to training CW workers and students in MI, differences in training duration, intensity, and modality make conclusions difficult, though trainees generally described MI favorably and some studies showed training increased worker empathy and self-efficacy. Importantly, few published studies have evaluated whether MI-trained CW workers impact out-of-home-care placement, and no studies have evaluated their impact on maltreatment.

A randomized clinical trial of motivational interviewing plus skills training vs. Relaxation plus education and 12-Steps for substance using incarcerated youth: Effects on alcohol, marijuana and crimes of aggression

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing plus Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MI/CBT) has been used to reduce adolescent substance use, but has rarely been applied in youth correctional settings. This trial compared MI/CBT against Relaxation Training plus Substance-Education/12-Steps (RT/SET) to reduce substance use and crime among incarcerated youth.

METHODS

Participants (N = 199) were incarcerated juveniles (64.8 % non-White, 10.1 % girls, mean age of 17.1 years). Two individual sessions of MI (or RT) were followed by 10 group sessions of CBT (or SET). Youth were randomized to condition with follow-ups at 3- and 6-months after release. Major outcomes included alcohol, marijuana and crimes involving aggression.

RESULTS

A marginal treatment by time interaction was found for percent heavy drinking days, with follow-up tests indicating less alcohol use in RT/SET than MI/CBT at 6 months, and increased use within MI/CBT from 3 to 6 months. A significant treatment by time interaction was found for alcohol-related predatory aggression, with follow-up tests indicating fewer youth engaged in this behavior from 3 to 6 months within RT/SET, and weak evidence favoring MI/CBT over RT/SET at 3 months. General predatory aggression decreased from 3 to 6-months for both treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although weak evidence was found favoring MI/CBT with respect to alcohol-related predatory aggression, results generally support RT/SET in reducing percent heavy drinking days.

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.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

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.

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.

A pilot randomized trial of Motivational Interviewing compared to Psycho-Education for reducing and preventing underage drinking in American Indian adolescents

Underage drinking is an important public health issue for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adolescents, as it is for U. S. teens of all ethnicities. One of the demonstrated risk factors for the development of alcohol use disorders in AI/AN is early age of initiation of drinking. To address this issue a randomized trial to assess the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing (MI) compared to Psycho-Education (PE) to reduce and prevent underage drinking in AI/AN youth was developed and implemented. Sixty-nine youth received MI or PE and 87% were assessed at follow-up. For teens who were already drinking, participating in the intervention (MI or PE) was associated, at follow-up, with lower quantity×frequency (q×f) of drinking (p=0.011), fewer maximum drinks per drinking occasion (p=0.004), and fewer problem behaviors (p=0.009). The MI intervention resulted in male drinkers reporting a lower q×f of drinking (p=0.048) and female drinkers reporting less depression (p=0.011). In teens who had not started drinking prior to the intervention, 17% had initiated drinking at follow-up. As a group they reported increased quantity×frequency of drinking (p=0.008) and maximum drinks (p=0.047), but no change in problem behaviors. These results suggest that intervening against underage drinking using either MI or PE in AI/AN youth can result in reduced drinking, prevention of initiation of drinking, and other positive behavioral outcomes. Brief interventions that enhance motivation to change as well as Psycho-Education may provide a successful approach to reducing the potential morbidity of underage drinking in this high-risk group.