Comparing outcomes of best-practice and research-based outpatient treatment protocols for adolescents.

摘要

Comparisons of well-developed practice-based interventions with research-based interventions are rare. This quasi-experimental study compares the outcomes of 274 adolescents (75% male; 63% weekly+ users; 54% dependent; 27% prior treatment; 73% with co-occurring problems) who received Chestnut Health System's best-practice Outpatient Treatment (CHS) or Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) research-based interventions. Ninety-five percent of participants completed follow-up interviews at three, six, nine, and 12 months after their intake GAIN interview. Initially, the CYT cohort scores indicated greater severity on several substance-related measures, while the CHS cohort scored higher on prior mental health treatment, victimization, and illegal activities measures. Adolescents in the CHS cohort were more likely to have longer lengths of stay and receive over three times as many hours of treatment. Mixed effects models revealed that CHS participants were significantly more likely to report a decrease in recovery environment risk, an increase in self-help attendance after treatment, and greater decreases in emotional problems, while CYT participants were significantly more likely to report decreases in their substance use. The results suggest that neither the best-practice nor the research-based interventions were clearly superior and call for a more rigorous randomized field experiment to better understand the differences in effectiveness between interventions.