Developing adaptive interventions for adolescent substance use treatment settings: protocol of an observational, mixed-methods project

Sean Grant, Denis Agniel, Daniel Almirall, Q Burkhart, Sarah B Hunter, Daniel F McCaffrey, Eric R Pedersen, Rajeev Ramchand, Beth Ann Griffin, Sean Grant, Denis Agniel, Daniel Almirall, Q Burkhart, Sarah B Hunter, Daniel F McCaffrey, Eric R Pedersen, Rajeev Ramchand, Beth Ann Griffin

Abstract

Background: Over 1.6 million adolescents in the United States meet criteria for substance use disorders (SUDs). While there are promising treatments for SUDs, adolescents respond to these treatments differentially in part based on the setting in which treatments are delivered. One way to address such individualized response to treatment is through the development of adaptive interventions (AIs): sequences of decision rules for altering treatment based on an individual's needs. This protocol describes a project with the overarching goal of beginning the development of AIs that provide recommendations for altering the setting of an adolescent's substance use treatment. This project has three discrete aims: (1) explore the views of various stakeholders (parents, providers, policymakers, and researchers) on deciding the setting of substance use treatment for an adolescent based on individualized need, (2) generate hypotheses concerning candidate AIs, and (3) compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive interventions commonly used in everyday practice.

Methods: This project uses a mixed-methods approach. First, we will conduct an iterative stakeholder engagement process, using RAND's ExpertLens online system, to assess the importance of considering specific individual needs and clinical outcomes when deciding the setting for an adolescent's substance use treatment. Second, we will use results from the stakeholder engagement process to analyze an observational longitudinal data set of 15,656 adolescents in substance use treatment, supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs questionnaire. We will utilize methods based on Q-learning regression to generate hypotheses about candidate AIs. Third, we will use robust statistical methods that aim to appropriately handle casemix adjustment on a large number of covariates (marginal structural modeling and inverse probability of treatment weights) to compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive decision rules that are commonly used in everyday practice.

Discussion: This project begins filling a major gap in clinical and research efforts for adolescents in substance use treatment. Findings could be used to inform the further development and revision of influential multi-dimensional assessment and treatment planning tools, or lay the foundation for subsequent experiments to further develop or test AIs for treatment planning.

Keywords: Adaptive interventions; Adolescents; Alcohol; Clinical decision-making; Drugs; Substance use treatment.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example of a 6-month, two-stage service-level adaptive intervention (AI) for adolescent marijuana users

References

    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4795. In: NSDUH Series H-46. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2013.
    1. D’Amico EJ, et al. Processes linking adolescent problems to substance-use problems in late young adulthood. J Stud Alcohol. 2005;66(6):766–775. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.766.
    1. Hill KG, et al. Early adult outcomes of adolescent binge drinking: person- and variable-centered analyses of binge drinking trajectories. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000;24(6):892–901. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02071.x.
    1. Tucker JS, et al. Predictors of attempted quitting and cessation among young adult smokers. Prev Med. 2005;41(2):554–561. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.12.002.
    1. Eaton DK, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance —United States, 2011. In: Surveillance Summaries, vol. 61, no. 4; 2012.
    1. National Institute on Drug Abuse . Principles of adolescent substance use disorder treatment: a research-based guide. Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2014.
    1. Dennis M, et al. The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Study: main findings from two randomized trials. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;27(3):197–213. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2003.09.005.
    1. Hser YI, et al. An evaluation of drug treatments for adolescents in 4 US cities. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(7):689–695. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.58.7.689.
    1. Hunter SB, et al. The effectiveness of community-based delivery of an evidence-based treatment for adolescent substance use. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012;43(2):211–220. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.11.003.
    1. Williams RJ, Chang SY. A comprehensive and comparative review of adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2000;7(2):138–166. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.7.2.138.
    1. Salome HJ, et al. Estimating the client costs of addiction treatment: first findings from the client drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (Client DATCAP) Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;71(2):195–206. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(03)00133-9.
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS): 2013. Discharges from Substance Abuse Treatment Services. BHSIS Series S-86, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 16-4988. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2016.
    1. Wickizer T, et al. Completion rates of clients discharged from drug and alcohol treatment programs in Washington State. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(2):215–221. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.84.2.215.
    1. Godley MD, et al. A randomized trial of assertive continuing care and contingency management for adolescents with substance use disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82(1):40–51. doi: 10.1037/a0035264.
    1. McKay JR. Treating substance use disorders with adaptive continuing care. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2009. p. 277.
    1. Tanner-Smith EE, Wilson SJ, Lipsey MW. The comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatment for adolescent substance abuse: a meta-analysis. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;44(2):145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.05.006.
    1. Tevyaw TO, Monti PM. Motivational enhancement and other brief interventions for adolescent substance abuse: foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction. 2004;99(Suppl 2):63–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00855.x.
    1. Nahum-Shani I, et al. A SMART data analysis method for constructing adaptive treatment strategies for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2017;112(5):901–909. doi: 10.1111/add.13743.
    1. Morgenstern J, McKay JR. Rethinking the paradigms that inform behavioral treatment research for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2007;102(9):1377–1389. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01882.x.
    1. Dennis ML, et al. The duration and correlates of addiction and treatment careers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;28(Suppl 1):S51–S62. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2004.10.013.
    1. Hser YI, et al. Drug treatment careers. A conceptual framework and existing research findings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1997;14(6):543–558. doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00016-0.
    1. Grella CE, Joshi V. Gender differences in drug treatment careers among clients in the national Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1999;25(3):385–406. doi: 10.1081/ADA-100101868.
    1. Almirall D, et al. Introduction to SMART designs for the development of adaptive interventions: with application to weight loss research. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(3):260–274. doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0265-0.
    1. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Bierman KL. A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prev Sci. 2004;5(3):185–196. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000037641.26017.00.
    1. Murphy SA, et al. Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;88(Suppl 2):S24–S30. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.008.
    1. Kaminer Y. Adaptive treatment for adolescent cannabis use disorders. 2012. .
    1. Budney AJ, Stanger C. Behavioral treatment of adolescent substance use. 2014. .
    1. The Methodology Center: Projects Using SMARTs. [cited 2014 Oct 31]. .
    1. McKay JR, et al. Effect of patient choice in an adaptive sequential randomization trial of treatment for alcohol and cocaine dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;83(6):1021–1032. doi: 10.1037/a0039534.
    1. Petry NM, et al. A randomized trial adapting contingency management targets based on initial abstinence status of cocaine-dependent patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80(2):276–285. doi: 10.1037/a0026883.
    1. Waldron HB, Turner CW. Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for adolescent substance abuse. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2008;37(1):238–261. doi: 10.1080/15374410701820133.
    1. American Society of Addiction Medicine . Crosswalk of the adolescent placement criteria. In: Shulman GD, editor. ASAM PPC-2R patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders. Chevy Chase: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
    1. Baker SL, Gastfriend DR. Reliability of multidimensional substance abuse treatment matching. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):45–60. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_04.
    1. Deck D, et al. Impact of patient placement criteria on substance abuse treatment under the oregon health plan. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):27–44. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_03.
    1. Gastfriend DR, et al. New constructs and assessments for relapse and continued use potential in the ASAM patient placement criteria. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):95–111. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_07.
    1. Gastfriend DR, Mee-Lee D. The ASAM patient placement criteria. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):1–8. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_01.
    1. Levine HJ, et al. Determining service variations between and within ASAM levels of care. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):9–25. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_02.
    1. Minkoff K, et al. Development of service intensity criteria and program categories for individuals with co-occurring disorders. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):113–129. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_08.
    1. Sharon E, et al. Predictive validity of the ASAM patient placement criteria for hospital utilization. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):79–93. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_06.
    1. Staines G, et al. Convergent validity of the ASAM patient placement criteria using a standardized computer algorithm. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(sup1):61–77. doi: 10.1300/J069v22S01_05.
    1. Chakraborty B, Moodie E. Statistical methods for dynamic treatment regimes. New York: Springer; 2013.
    1. Kosorok MR, Moodie EE. Adaptive treatment strategies in practice: planning trials and analyzing data for personalized medicine. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 2015.
    1. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):561–570. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012.
    1. Hernan MA, et al. Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98(3):237–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_329.x.
    1. Murphy SA, et al. Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96(456):1410–1423. doi: 10.1198/016214501753382327.
    1. Pearl J. Graphs, causality, and structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 1998;27(2):226–284. doi: 10.1177/0049124198027002004.
    1. Robins JM. A graphical approach to the identification and estimation of causal parameters in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(Suppl 2):139S–161S. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9681(87)80018-8.
    1. Robins JM. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1994;23(8):2379–2412. doi: 10.1080/03610929408831393.
    1. Robins JM. Causal inference from complex longitudinal data. In: Berkane M, editor. Latent variable modeling and applications to causality. Lecture Notes in Statistics. New York: Springer; 1997.
    1. Robins JM. Estimating causal effects of time-varying endogenous treatments by G-estimation of structural nested models. In: Berkane M, editor. Latent variable modeling and applications to causality. Lecture notes in statistics. New York: Springer; 1997. pp. 69–117.
    1. Almirall D, et al. Subgroups analysis when treatment and moderators are time-varying. Prev Sci. 2013;14(2):169–178. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0208-7.
    1. Almirall D, Ten Have T, Murphy SA. Structural nested mean models for assessing time-varying effect moderation. Biometrics. 2010;66(1):131–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01238.x.
    1. Barber JS, Murphy SA, Verbitsky N. Adjusting for time-varying confounding in survival analysis. Sociol Methodol. 2004;34(1):163–192. doi: 10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00151.x.
    1. Nahum-Shani I, Hekler EB, Spruijt-Metz D. Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive interventions: a pragmatic framework. Health Psychol. 2015;34(Supplement):1209–1219. doi: 10.1037/hea0000306.
    1. Almirall D, et al. Designing a pilot sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for developing an adaptive treatment strategy. Stat Med. 2012;31(17):1887–1902. doi: 10.1002/sim.4512.
    1. Almirall D, et al. SMARTer discontinuation trial designs for developing an adaptive treatment strategy. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2012;22(5):364–374. doi: 10.1089/cap.2011.0073.
    1. Collins LM, Nahum-Shani I, Almirall D. Optimization of behavioral dynamic treatment regimens based on the sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) Clin Trials. 2014;11(4):426–434. doi: 10.1177/1740774514536795.
    1. Lavori PW, Dawson R. A design for testing clinical strategies: biased adaptive within-subject randomization. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2000;163(1):29–38. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00154.
    1. Lavori PW, Dawson R. Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clin Trials. 2004;1(1):9–20. doi: 10.1191/1740774S04cn002oa.
    1. Murphy SA. An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med. 2005;24(10):1455–1481. doi: 10.1002/sim.2022.
    1. Nahum-Shani I, et al. Q-learning: a data analysis method for constructing adaptive interventions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(4):478–494. doi: 10.1037/a0029373.
    1. Thall PF, et al. Adaptive therapy for androgen-independent prostate cancer: a randomized selection trial of four regimens. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(21):1613–1622. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm189.
    1. Thall PF, Millikan RE, Sung HG. Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2000;19(8):1011–1028. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000430)19:8<1011::AID-SIM414>;2-M.
    1. Dennis ML. Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) Administration guide for the GAIN and related measures (Version 1299) Bloomington: Chestnut Health Systems; 1999.
    1. Hunter SB, et al. Assessing the generalizability of the CSAT-sponsored GAIN dataset: are the CSAT sites representative of adolescent treatment programs in the U.S.? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(2):238–243. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.011.
    1. Khodyakov D, et al. Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:174. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-174.
    1. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–1015.
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). National Outcomes Measures (NOM). Rockville: SAMHSA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
    1. Fitch K, et al. RAND, UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2001.
    1. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
    1. National Institute on Drug Abuse . Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations—a research-based guide. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2006.
    1. Winters KC, Botzet AM, Fahnhorst T. Advances in adolescent substance abuse treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2011;13(5):416–421. doi: 10.1007/s11920-011-0214-2.
    1. Dennis ML, et al. Comparisons of adolescents and adults by ASAM profile using GAIN data from the Drug Outcome Monitoring Study (DOMS): preliminary data tables. 1999. .
    1. Mee-Lee D, American Society of Addiction M. ASAM patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders. Chevy Chase: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 2001.
    1. GAIN Coordinating Center. GAIN-I encyclopedia of supplemental documentation on scales and other calculated variables [Electronic version]. 2011 [cited 2014 Oct 31]. .
    1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Data: NOMs 101: National Outcome Measures. [cited 2014 Oct 31]. .
    1. Bellman RE. Dynamic programming. Dover books on computer science. Mineola: Dover Publications; 2003.
    1. Van Buuren S. Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16(3):219–242. doi: 10.1177/0962280206074463.
    1. Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67. doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03.
    1. Hernan MA, Brumback BA, Robins JM. Estimating the causal effect of zidovudine on CD4 count with a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2002;21(12):1689–1709. doi: 10.1002/sim.1144.
    1. Robins JM. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period: application to the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model. 1986;7:1393–1512. doi: 10.1016/0270-0255(86)90088-6.
    1. Robins JM. Addendum to “a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods-application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Comput Math Appl. 1987;14(9–12):923–945. doi: 10.1016/0898-1221(87)90238-0.
    1. Robins JM. Association, causation, and marginal structural models. Synthese. 1999;121:151–179. doi: 10.1023/A:1005285815569.
    1. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550–560. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011.
    1. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the joint causal effect of nonrandomized treatments. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96(454):440–448. doi: 10.1198/016214501753168154.
    1. Robins JM. Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference. In: Berry MEHD, editor. Statistical models in epidemiology: the environment and clinical trials. New York: Springer; 1999. pp. 95–134.
    1. Orellana L, Rotnitzky A, Robins JM. Dynamic regime marginal structural mean models for estimation of optimal dynamic treatment regimes, part I: main content. Int J Biostat. 2010;6(2), p. Article 8.
    1. Moodie EE, Chakraborty B, Kramer MS. Q-learning for estimating optimal dynamic treatment rules from observational data. Can J Stat. 2012;40(4):629–645. doi: 10.1002/cjs.11162.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever