Background and Objectives Substance use disorders among youth remain a serious public health problem. Although research has overwhelmingly supported the use of evidenced-based interventions, one of the primary limitations of the current evidence base is that for the vast majority of treatments, the developers of the treatments are also the ones conducting research on them, raising the possibility of allegiance bias. Methods The present study was an independently conducted randomized controlled trial (n =126) comparing an evidenced-based treatment for adolescent substance use, Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), and assertive continuing care (ACC), to services as usual (SAU) provided by a juvenile probation department. Latent growth curve modeling was used to compare the treatments on change in substance use assessed by the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment entry. Results All youth evidenced a substantial reduction in substance use frequency and substance-related problems following treatment; however, youth treated with A-CRA/ACC evidenced a substantially greater decrease in substance-related problems. Conclusions and Scientific Significance Results are consistent with studies conducted by A-CRA/ACC model developers supporting the effectiveness of the clinical approach and, because the outcomes resulted from an independent replication, are encouraging for the transportation potential of A-CRA/ACC.

The use of involuntary outpatient commitment (IOC) is a significant international issue. Variations can be found in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), Switzerland, and the United States. Its use varies considerably by country and in the United States, between states. In Florida, the IOC statute has been used sparingly. This paper first presents information about the first fifty IOC cases in Florida including a description of the pre-and post-IOC order emergency commitments and state hospital admissions of these individuals. It then provides results from a survey of mental health professionals about their experience with and opinions about IOC. The majority of the individuals with IOC orders had at least one emergency commitment in the two years pre-IOC order (n = 46; range 1-7) and in the two years post-IOC order (n = 41; range 1-13). While 41 individuals experienced 68 total emergency commitments in the 180 days prior to the IOC order, 18 individuals had 24 emergency commitments in the 180 days after the order. Eleven had at least one state hospital admission pre-IOC order, with eight having such an admission post-IOC order. Results from the survey suggest that a number of issues have reduced the use of IOC, including difficulties in applying the statute, inadequate clinical resources, and skepticism regarding the practical effect of an IOC order on positive clinical outcomes. The implications of these results for policy development are discussed.

No abstract