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

NCT ID: NCT02106754

Last Updated: 2019-10-10

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

576 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-09-30

Study Completion Date

2019-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

1. A) To evaluate SN, SP, PP and NP of the 2-question Alcohol Screener to detect: a) alcohol problems (academic, social, injuries, intoxicated driving, unprotected sex), b) abuse/dependence, c) past 4 week binge drinking. 1B) This will be repeated to predict risk prospectively over 12 months. Classification rates will be compared for race, ethnicity, gender, and age groups.
2. A) To evaluate SN, SP, PP and NP of the 2-question Screener to detect a) 30-day drug use, b) 30-day cigarette use, c) conduct disorder, d) unprotected sex. 2B) This will be repeated to predict risk prospectively over 12 months. Classification rates will be compared for race, ethnicity, gender, and age groups. 3) To evaluate BI as compared to usual procedures. The investigators hypothesize those youths in BI will a) receive more services, b) be more satisfied with services, c) rate the relationship with the PO more highly, and d) have improved outcomes (alcohol, alcohol-related problems, problem recognition).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Evaluating NIAAA's Alcohol Screener Evaluating a Brief Intervention

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Brief Intervention

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

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Brief Intervention

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Treatment As Usual

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

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Treatment as Usual

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Brief Intervention with Coaching

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

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Brief Intervention with Coaching

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Brief Intervention

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Brief Intervention with Coaching

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Treatment as Usual

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Youths 9-18 years old

Exclusion Criteria

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

9 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Brown University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Rhode Island

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Lynda Stein, Ph.D.

Professor, University of Rhode Island

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Lyn Stein

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

URI

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

R01AA021855

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: org_study_id

View Link

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Alcohol Feedback, Reflection and Morning Evaluation
NCT05509218 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA