- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05964010
Primary Connections for Youth and Families (PCYF)
Adolescent-Only SBI Versus Family-Based SBI in Primary Care for Adolescent Alcohol Use
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
- Behavioral: Standard Screening
- Behavioral: Standard Psychoeducation
- Behavioral: Standard Brief Negotiated Interview (BNI)
- Behavioral: Standard Referral to Treatment (RT)
- Behavioral: Family Screening
- Behavioral: Family Psychoeducation
- Behavioral: Family Brief Negotiated Interview (BNI)
- Behavioral: Family Facilitated Conversation (FC) & Referral to Treatment (RT)
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Nicole P Porter, PhD
- Phone Number: 212-841-5265
- Email: nporter@toendaddiction.org
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Youth aged 12-17 years with a primary caregiver (i.e., parental figure) also in attendance to primary care appointment
- Youth and caregiver are fluent in English or Spanish
- Youth and caregiver are capable of using audio-assisted informed consent procedures and independently operating a hand-held tablet device
- Youth and caregiver are complete routine site AOD risk screening questions prompted during PC visit intake
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Screening
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: SBIRT-A-Standard
Standard adolescent-only approach to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescent substance use.
|
All consented youth age 12-17 years complete a patient-facing, well-validated digital screening tool, the CRAFFT (Knight et al., 2003), which assesses number of days during the past year, and then the past 3 months, during which various formulations of AOD were used.
If youth report 0 days of AOD use, the tool asks whether they have ridden in a car whose driver was intoxicated; if this response is negative, they are categorized Low Risk.
If youth report > 0 days of AOD use, the tool asks five additional questions assessing use risk and consequences; also, youth who report nicotine use in the past 30 days complete a nicotine dependence checklist (DiFranza et al., 2002).
Screen data are then combined to sort youth into three risk categories: Riding Risk Only (no reported AOD use but indicated rode in car driven by intoxicated person), Distant Use (reported AOD use in past year but not past 3 months), or Recent Use (reported AOD use in past 3 months).
In the wait area, youth receive a tablet-delivered brief digital AOD education tutorial that includes advice to abstain from or reduce AOD use.
The tutorial focuses on adolescent AOD prevalence rates and related behavioral symptoms; AOD use neurobiology and its relation to adolescent health; and common AOD impacts on developmental milestones (see Meredith et al., 2021).
Psychoeducation for AOD has shown positive effects as both a universal and selective prevention strategy (Bröning et al., 2021; Das et al., 2016).
In primary care (PC) office, youth and providers together complete a tablet-supported brief negotiated interview (BNI; see Beaton et al., 2016).
The BNI is informed by AOD use data gathered during youth screening (O'Grady et al., 2015).
The BNI focuses on (a) education about AOD disorders, including youth and family factors that impact AOD use; (b) user-tailored feedback comparing the given youth's AOD use and related problems to national norms, along with information on neurobiological effects and developmental impacts of frequent use (Harris et al., 2012); (c) motivational tools (e.g., reduction readiness rulers) and decisional balance exercises (weighing positive versus negative personal impacts of AOD use) tailored to the youth's use levels (Slavet et al., 2006; King et al., 2009); and (d) AOD reduction goal-setting interventions tailored to the youth's readiness to change AOD use (Walton et al., 2013).
In primary care (PC) offices providers and youth discuss the value of attending counseling services to address AOD-related problems (Cucciare et al., 2015); counseling referral links that the PC site curates with local services; and the value of youth talking directly with caregivers about their AOD involvement as a first step toward support-seeking and behavior change (Gayes & Steele, 2014).
Providers directly recommend AOD counseling and facilitate a first appointment for youth who agree.
|
Experimental: SBIRT-A-Family
Family-based approach to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescent substance use in which caregivers are systematically included in screening, intervention, and referral activities.
|
Screening procedures incorporate procedures for youth described for Standard Screening.
They also incorporate two sources of caregiver-report data.
First is an estimate of youth AOD use based on the Screening 2 Brief Intervention tool (Levy et al., 2016).
Second is a 9-item checklist of youth mental health (MH) problems (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
If both youth and caregiver report no AOD use or clinical-level MH problem, the family is categorized Low Risk.
Otherwise, screen data are combined to sort families into three risk categories: Hidden SU Risk (youth reports AOD use in past year; caregiver reports no youth AOD use in past year), Named MH Risk (caregiver reports no youth AOD use in past year; caregiver reports clinical-level score for at least one youth MH domain), Named SU Risk (caregiver reports youth AOD use in past year).
Youth proceed as indicated in the SBIRT-A-Standard condition based on youth screen data.
In the wait area, caregivers receive a tablet-delivered parenting tutorial that covers two AOD risk domains: education about adolescent AOD including prevalence rates, related behavior problems, neurobiological and health effects, and impacts on developmental milestones; and education and video modeling about parenting strategies that reduce or moderate AOD risk, including positive communication, fair and consistent discipline, and non-judgmental conversations about AOD use (Bo et al., 2018).
Positive parenting education has been shown effective as a universal and selective prevention strategy in parent-focused AOD prevention trials (Kuntsche & Kuntshce, 2016; Ladis et al., 2019; Van Ryzin et al., 2017).
Tutorials are tailored for each risk category.
Youth proceed as indicated in the SBIRT-A-Standard condition based on youth screen data.
In primary care (PC) offices, caregivers and providers together complete a tablet-supported parenting BNI informed by data from the caregiver screen only that parallels the youth BNI (e.g., AOD education, developmental risks) and also includes motivation, modeling, and goal-setting on positive parenting (e.g., non-judgmental conversations; see above) and effective parent-youth communication about AOD use (Carver et al., 2017).
In PC offices, providers meet separately with youth and caregivers to discuss the value of talking directly with the other family member about AOD risk while practicing positive communication strategies.
Whenever both youth and caregiver agree to talk together, providers convene a brief facilitated conversation about AOD risk.
In this conversation providers (a) emphasize that a positive youth-caregiver relationship is the strongest protective factor for youth development and (b) follow guidelines for brief triadic risk-reduction interventions focused on positive family communication about AOD risk (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2020).
When indicated, providers directly recommend AOD counseling and facilitate a first appointment for families who agree.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change in Assessment of Liability and Exposure to Substance use and Antisocial Behavior (ALEXSA; Ridenour et al., 2009)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Youth report audio-assisted self-interview that measures frequency of alcohol and other drug use.
This study will use 6 items.
The first three items assess whether youth have ever used alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (yes/no).
If use of a substance is reported, a follow-up question is presented regarding frequency of use e.g., "How often do you [use tobacco/drink alcohol/ use marijuana] right now?" with response options of 0 = never to 5 = every day for each substance.
For each substance, scores range from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicate more frequent use.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Youth Risk Index (ALEXSA; Ridenour et al., 2009)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Youth and caregiver report measure assessing risk factors associated with youth alcohol and other drug use.
The YRI contains 23 items from the ALEXSA measuring risk factors associated with youth substance use including anger coping, impulsivity, distractibility, disinhibition, peer conduct problems, and susceptibility to peer pressure.
17 items are rated on a 4-point likert scale from 0 to 3 and 6 items are measured on a 6-point scale from 0 to 5+.
Total score ranges from 0 to 81 with higher scores indicating more risk factors.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Brief Problem Monitor (BPM; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
A 19-item youth and caregiver report component of the well-validated Achenbach youth behavior problem assessment system that yields normed scores with clinical cut levels for three problem domains: internalizing (anxiety, depression, somatic complaints), externalizing (aggression, conduct problems), inattention/impulsivity. Items are rated on a 3-point scale from 0 = never to 2 = often.
Total score ranges from 0 to 38 with higher scores representing more problems.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL 4.0; Children's Hospital and Health Center, San Diego, CA)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Youth and caregiver report measure assessing youth functioning in different domains.
This study will use the Social and School scales.
Each scale has 5 items and items are scored on a 5-point scale from 0 = never a problem to 4 = almost always a problem.
Some items are reversed scored such that each scale ranges from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating better quality of life.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Services Assessment for Children and Adolescents (SACA; Stiffman et al., 2000)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Caregiver report measure assessing youth's past and current use of inpatient, outpatient, and school-based behavioral health services.
Items are dichotomous (yes/no) and the scale ranges from 0 (no services) to 3 (3 types of services) for past and current use such that higher numbers indicate more services.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Parent-Teen Alcohol and Other Drug Use Communication Frequency (Koning et al., 2014)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
6-item youth and caregiver report measure assessing frequency of communication about key alcohol and other drug use issues.
Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 = never to 4 = very often.
Total score ranges from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating greater communication frequency.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Change in Parent-Teen Alcohol and Other Drug Use Communication Quality (Spijkerman et al., 2008)
Time Frame: Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
6-item youth and caregiver report measure assessing quality of communication about key alcohol and other drug use issues.
Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 = never to 4 = very often.
Total score ranges from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating greater communication quality.
|
Initial and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Car Relax Alone Forget Family Trouble (CRAFFT; Knight et al., 2003)
Time Frame: Initial screening
|
Youth-report tool that begins with questions about number of days during the past 12 months, and then the past 3 months, during which the patient used alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, illegal drugs, or prescription medication for the purpose of getting high. The 12-month period scores range from 0 to 365 and the 3-month period scores range from 0 to 90 with higher scores indicating more frequent use. If AOD is endorsed, six follow-up dichotomous (yes/no) questions are asked about reasons for use: use to Relax, use while Alone, Forget things you did while intoxicated, Family or friends tell you to reduce use, gotten into Trouble while using. If AOD is denied, 1 follow-up dichotomous (yes/no) question is asked about whether the individual has ridden in a Car driven by someone (including self) who was intoxicated (yes/no). |
Initial screening
|
Hooked on Nicotine Checklist (HONC; DiFranza et al., 2002)
Time Frame: Initial screening
|
10-item youth report of nicotine dependence completed by patients who report any days of using a vaping device containing nicotine, or any tobacco products, during the past 30 days.
Items are dichotomous (yes/no) and total score ranges from 0 to 10 with higher scores indicating greater dependence.
|
Initial screening
|
Caregiver Estimate of Youth Alcohol and Other Drug Use (Levy et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2021)
Time Frame: Initial screening
|
Caregiver Estimate of Youth AOD Use was created for this study based on the Screening 2 Brief Intervention tool (Levy et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2021); it asks caregivers to estimate how often over the past 3 months their teen used alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, prescription drug misuse, inhalants, herbs/synthetic drugs, and other drugs on the same scale.
Total score ranges using a 4 point scale from 0 = never to 3 = weekly.
Total score ranges from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating more frequent substance use.
|
Initial screening
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Aaron Hogue, PhD, Partnership to End Addiction
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Estimated)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimated)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- AU-2022C1-26455
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Substance Use
-
Medical University of South CarolinaNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)RecruitingSubstance Use | Substance Use Disorders | Cannabis Use | Alcohol Use, UnspecifiedUnited States
-
Woebot HealthNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Stanford UniversityCompletedSubstance Use Disorders | Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)United States
-
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)RecruitingSubstance Use Disorder | Cocaine Use DisorderUnited States
-
Emory UniversityNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Georgia Institute of Technology; CUNYCompletedSubstance-Related Disorders | Substance Abuse, Intravenous | Substance Use Disorders | Opioid Use | Substance Abuse | Opioid-use Disorder | Opioid Use Disorder, Severe | Substance WithdrawalUnited States
-
Woebot HealthStanford UniversityCompletedSubstance Use Disorders | Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)United States
-
University of MichiganNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)RecruitingSubstance Use | Substance Use Disorders | Substance DependenceUnited States
-
Wake Forest University Health SciencesNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)RecruitingSubstance Use | Opioid Use | Drug Use | Substance MisuseUnited States
-
Istanbul UniversityCompletedSubstance Use | Substance Use Disorders | Substance AbuseTurkey
-
Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Missouri, St. LouisCompletedSubstance Use Disorders | Alcohol Use DisorderCanada
-
Medical University of South CarolinaNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)CompletedPTSD | Alcohol Use Disorders | Substance Use DisordersUnited States
Clinical Trials on Standard Screening
-
Affiliated Hospital to Academy of Military Medical...Beijing 302 HospitalUnknownNovel Coronavirus Infection PneumoniaChina
-
Parc de Salut MarCompleted
-
Cancer Registry of NorwayHelse Vest; Norwegian Cancer Society; Helse Midt-Norge; Helse NordNot yet recruiting
-
Vastra Gotaland RegionCompletedMusculoskeletal Pain
-
Mefire Alain ChichomUniversity of California, Berkeley; University of California, Los Angeles; Fogarty...Not yet recruitingTrauma | Injuries | Injury Traumatic
-
University of DelawareIndependence Prosthetics-Orthotics, Inc.; Orthotic and Prosthetic Education...CompletedDepression | Low Back Pain | Amputation | Neuropathy;Peripheral | Limb IschemiaUnited States
-
Duke UniversityCompleted
-
University of ArkansasDuke University; National Institutes of Health (NIH); University of KentuckyRecruitingHearing LossUnited States
-
University of British ColumbiaInterior Health; Retired Teachers of Ontario FoundationCompleted
-
National Taiwan University HospitalActive, not recruitingPregnancy Complications | Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in PregnancyTaiwan