Alcohol Screening & Brief Lntervention in Juvenile Justice: Filling the Gap

NCT02106754 | Completed DMC

• 1 other identifier: R01AA021855
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 576
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This proposal is in response to RFA-AA-12-008, Evaluation of NIAAA's Alcohol Screening Guide for Children and Adolescents. Of particular interest to the agency are evaluation of the Screener in clinical and/or other settings to predict alcohol-related consequences including use disorder; its use as an initial screen for drug use, cigarette smoking, conduct disorder, and unprotected sex; and its performance in making predictions concurrently and prospectively. This proposal targets these areas of interest. In addition, the investigators will study implementation of the Brief Intervention (BI) associated with the Screener. There is a great need for both screening and BI in juvenile probation settings as many of these youths have great need but are underserved.Many probation departments are turning to BI to work with probationers and parolees. Screening and BI has demonstrated efficacy in these settings, and yet no randomized control trials have been conducted to evaluate effectiveness in juvenile probation settings. Probation Officers (POs; n=40) are randomized to Screener (S), Screener+BI (SBI), or coaching (CSBI). Youths (N=1000) are randomized to 1 of these 3 conditions, and all receive usual services (US). US consist of regular check-in with PO and access to referral services as needed (counseling, academic tutoring, etc.). Research staffers conduct in-depth assessment at baseline, 6- and 12- months. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive powers (SN, SP, PP, NP) are calculated to predict alcohol risk and consequences, as well as other risky behaviors concurrently and prospectively across age-groups. A 1-way design (S vs SBI vs CSBI) will be used to determine whether SBI and CSBI enhance youth services-use and reduce risks (e.g., alcohol use, risky sex). We examine moderators of outcomes (youth age, PO characteristics) and whether coaching (an important consideration in implementation science) in use of BI improves outcomes. This study will be the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of SBI in a juvenile probation setting.

Conditions

Evaluating NIAAA's Alcohol Screener; Evaluating a Brief Intervention

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Measure of change across three points in time for alcohol, cigarette and other drug use

  Time-Line Follow-Back (TLFB) measures past 30-day use of alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs at each assessment (BL, 6- \& 12-month). It is well known, reliable and valid (Harrison \& McKee, 2008; Carey et al, 2004). Days/month used, and binge-drinking are obtained. For analyses involving classification rates, binge \> 1 is considered problematic, and definitions of binge will follow Donovan (2009). RCQ (Risks/Consequences Questionnaire; Stein et al, 2010) provides an overall

  baseline, 6 month follow-up, 12 month follow-up

Study Arms (3)

Brief Intervention

EXPERIMENTAL

Youth may receive brief intervention from their provider based on randomization.

Behavioral: Brief Intervention

Treatment As Usual

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Youth may receive treatment as usual from their provider based on randomization.

Behavioral: Treatment as Usual

Brief Intervention with Coaching

EXPERIMENTAL

Youth may receive brief intervention with coaching from their provider based on randomization.

Behavioral: Brief Intervention with Coaching

Interventions

Brief Intervention BEHAVIORAL

Brief Intervention

Brief Intervention with Coaching BEHAVIORAL

Brief Intervention with Coaching

Treatment as Usual BEHAVIORAL

Treatment As Usual

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 9 Years - 18 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Youths 9-18 years old

You may not qualify if:

• Age (\< 9, \>18 years)
• Prior enrollment in a behavioral intervention study
• PO previously engaging them with Screener

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Rhode Island: lead
• Brown University: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island, 02881, United States

Location

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Crisis Intervention; Therapeutics

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Psychotherapy; Behavioral Disciplines and Activities

Study Officials

• Lyn Stein

  URI

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor, University of Rhode Island

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: March 27, 2014
• First Posted: April 8, 2014
• Study Start: September 1, 2012
• Primary Completion: May 31, 2019
• Study Completion: May 31, 2019
• Last Updated: October 10, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-10

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)