2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Substance use treatment outcomes for youth: Integrating personal and environmental predictors

Abstract: This investigation examined personal and environmental predictors of substance treatment outcomes in youth. 424 adolescents (M = 15.9 years, SD = 1.3) completed comprehensive assessments, including substance use, environmental factors (e.g., family history, social supports), and person-centered variables (e.g., Axis I diagnosis, motivation, self-esteem), at study intake and throughout the year following inpatient treatment. Youth treatment outcomes were assessed by relapse status (abstaining, minor relapse, ma… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
39
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
39
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, certain personal characteristics, such as inadequate coping strategies, an inappropriate value system, or lack of self-esteem [3,4,17,38,57], might help to identify those who are at increased risk for initiation of drinking [58]. However, in our study, both girls who were discontent with their lives and boys who were content with their problemsolving skills were more prone to alcohol consumption.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…Therefore, certain personal characteristics, such as inadequate coping strategies, an inappropriate value system, or lack of self-esteem [3,4,17,38,57], might help to identify those who are at increased risk for initiation of drinking [58]. However, in our study, both girls who were discontent with their lives and boys who were content with their problemsolving skills were more prone to alcohol consumption.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…Treatment (index episode) characteristics included age at admission (Anderson et al, 2007; Brecht et al, 2006), type of treatment (1=residential vs. 0=out-patient; Prendergast et al, 2002), legal or criminal justice system pressure for admission (1=yes, 0=no; Perron and Bright, 2008), and number of months in the index episode (Brecht et al, 2000; Hser et al, 2007). A post-treatment measure indicated subject participation in self-help or other SUD treatment following discharge from the index episode and prior to relapse (1=yes, 0=no; Gossop et al, 2007; Grella et al, 2010; Kissin et al, 2003; Witbrodt et al, 2012).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple imputation was used to compensate for patterns of missing data within the predictor variables (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Similar to the strategy outlined in Anderson, Ramo, Schulte, Cummins, and Brown (2007, 2008), each missing value was replaced by a set of m >1 plausible values to generate m complete data sets; each estimatewas combined to provide parameter estimates and standard errors in the regressions (Sinharay, Stern, & Russell, 2001). Thirty-five data sets were generated for multiple imputation using chained equations (van Buuren, Boshuizen, & Knook, 1999) using variables associated with drinking outcomes in this sample (e.g., demographics, personality, cognitive, social variables) but not the drinking outcome variables themselves.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%