The Development and Transportability of Multisystemic Therapy-Substance Abuse: A Treatment for Adolescents with Substance Use Disorders

Pathways to substance use: Examining conduct problems and parenting behaviors from preschool to adolescence

While many studies have identified risk and protective factors of substance use (SU), few have assessed the reciprocal associations of child conduct problems (CP) and parenting practices and behaviors in the prediction of SU across development. A greater understanding of how these factors relate over time is needed to improve the timing of targeted prevention efforts. This study examined how child CP, parenting behaviors, and parents' own antisocial behavior relate from preschool to adolescence and eventuate in SU. Participants included 706 youth (70.6% male; 89.7% white) enrolled in the Michigan Longitudinal Study. Data from waves 1 (ages 3-5), 2 (ages 6-8), 3 (ages 9-11), 4 (ages 12-14), and 5 (ages 15-17) were included. A random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) examined reciprocal associations between parenting practices, parents' antisocial behavior, and child CP over time (waves 1-4) and how these factors contribute to adolescent alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use (wave 5). At the within-person level, negative parenting and parents' own antisocial behavior had a strong influence in late childhood/early adolescence. Only child CP emerged as a significant predictor of SU. Results highlight the importance of early intervention and the potential influence of parenting and child factors throughout development in the prevention of SU.

Core Elements of Family Therapy for Adolescent Behavioral Health Problems: Validity Generalization in Community Settings

OBJECTIVE

The core elements of family therapy for adolescent mental health and substance use problems, originally distilled from high-fidelity sessions conducted by expert clinicians, were tested for validity generalization when delivered by community therapists in routine settings.

METHOD

The study sampled recorded sessions from 161 cases participating in one of three treatment pools: implementation trial of Functional Family Therapy (98 sessions/50 cases/22 therapists), adaptation trial of Multisystemic Therapy (115 sessions/59 cases/2 therapists), and naturalistic trial of non-manualized family therapy in usual care (107 sessions/52 cases/21 therapists). Adolescents were identified as 60% male and 40% female with an average age of 15.4 years; 49% were Latinx, 27% White Non-Latinx, 15% African American, 3% another race/ethnicity, 6% race/ethnicity unknown. Session recordings (n = 320) were randomly selected for each case and coded for 21 discrete family therapy techniques. Archived data of one-year clinical outcomes were gathered.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analyses replicated the factor structure from the original distillation study, retaining all four clinically coherent treatment modules comprised of all 21 techniques: Interactional Change (ICC = .77, Cronbach's α = .81); Relational Reframe (ICC = .75, α = .81); Adolescent Engagement (ICC = .72, α = .78); Relational Emphasis (ICC = .76, α = .80). Exploratory analyses found that greater use of core techniques predicted symptom improvements in one treatment pool.

CONCLUSIONS

Core techniques of family therapy distilled from manualized treatments for adolescent behavioral health problems showed strong evidence of validity generalization, and initial evidence of links to client outcomes, in community settings.

JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN JUVENILE PROBATION AND WITH CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT

Probation is a common sanction for youth substance users, and as such, juvenile probation officers (JPOs) shoulder much of the burden for treatment and rehabilitation. To improve youth outcomes and alleviate some of the burden, JPOs may seek parental involvement in the probation and substance use desistance processes. Using focus group data, we analyzed JPO perceptions of the role parents play in contingency management (CM)-an incentive system designed to produce and reward decreased substance use-and whether they perceived any value in CM. We found that most JPOs perceived parental involvement as critical to the success of both substance use treatment and CM for youth. Our findings also suggest JPOs found parental involvement in CM valuable given that CM was employed on nonstudy clients and future clients. This has implications for the practicality and sustainability of CM as a youth probation intervention.

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.

Until there's nothing left: Caregiver resource provision to youth with opioid use disorders

Background and Aims: Despite the considerable literature associating certain characteristics of caregivers and family structures with risks of adolescent/young adult (youth) substance use, there has been little study of the role of caregivers in opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment outcomes. This qualitative study sought to understand and contextualize the factors that influenced the resources caregivers provided their youth after residential treatment. Methods: In order to improve understandings of the role caregivers play both during and after residential OUD treatment, 31 caregivers of youth who were in a residential substance use disorder treatment center were interviewed at baseline, three-months, and six-months following their youth's discharge. Results: This analysis focused on the provision of caregiver resources and identified three key influences - OUD understandings and expectations, relationships with youth, and the emotional toll on caregivers. This has important implications as residential treatment success rates are relatively low among this population. Conclusions: These findings suggest that engagement of caregivers and families in outpatient care following residential treatment could offer an important opportunity for interventions that promote youth recovery.

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.

Contingency Management: Using Incentives to Improve Outcomes for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders

Multiple interventions for treating adolescents with substance use disorders have demonstrated efficacy, but most teens do not show an enduring positive response to these treatments. Contingency management (CM)-based strategies provide a promising alternative, and clinical research focused on the development and testing of innovative CM models continues to grow. This article provides information on the principles that underlie CM interventions, key metrics that define their development and implementation, a brief review of studies that have tested these approaches, and some clinical CM tools. As with other interventions to help youth with substance use problems, there is much to learn about CM approaches.