Ecologically based family therapy outcome with substance abusing runaway adolescents

Abstract

Runaway youth report a broader range and higher severity of substance-related, mental health and family problems relative to non-runaway youth. Most studies to date have collected self-report data on the family and social history; virtually no research has examined treatment effectiveness with this population. This study is a treatment development project in which 124 runaway youth were randomly assigned to 1) Ecologically-Based Family Therapy (EBFT) or 2) Service as Usual (SAU) through a shelter. Youth completed an intake, posttreatment, 6 and 12 month follow-up assessment. Youth assigned to EBFT reported greater reductions in overall substance abuse compared to youth assigned to SAU while other problem areas improved in both conditions. Findings suggest that EBFT is an efficacious intervention for this relatively severe population of youth.

The impact of an integrated treatment on HIV risk behavior among homeless youth: a randomized controlled trial

“…The Health Risk Questionnaire (Slesnick et al 2006;Slesnick and Prestopnik 2005) incorporated items from the Health Risk Survey (Kann et al 1989) and the Homeless Youth Questionnaire (Johnson et al 1996), which, together, address a wide range of HIV-attitudes, knowledge and risk behaviors. Several scales of the Health Risk Survey have been found to have acceptable internal reliabilities (Ashworth et al 1992;DiClemente 1991).…”

Predictors of Substance Use and Family Therapy Outcome Among Physically and Sexually Abused Runaway Adolescents

“…Family therapy-In this project, two manualized, ecologically focused, family systemsbased therapies were offered; one provided in the office (Alexander & Parsons, 1982) and one in the home (Slesnick & Prestopnik, 2005). These two treatment models are similar in focus, though different in context (home vs. office).…”

Interventions to modify sexual risk behaviours for preventing HIV in homeless youth

“…A total of 240 records were eliminated at screening, leaving 15 eligible reports that were examined in detail for eligibility assessment (full text obtained). Of the 15 reports, 11 reports of 10 independent studies were excluded and the remaining four reports detailed three suitable studies eligible for this review (RotheramBorus 2003, Slesnick 2005, Slesnick 2008). …”