Legal outcomes of task-shifting contingency management for youth substance use to rural probation officers: Secondary results from a randomized clinical trial.

IF 5 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology Pub Date : 2026-03-01 DOI:10.1037/ccp0001002

Ashli J Sheidow,Tess K Drazdowski,Jason E Chapman,Michael R McCart

{"title":"Legal outcomes of task-shifting contingency management for youth substance use to rural probation officers: Secondary results from a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Ashli J Sheidow,Tess K Drazdowski,Jason E Chapman,Michael R McCart","doi":"10.1037/ccp0001002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nYouth substance use disorder is a significant problem in rural communities, yet treatment access is negligible. Task-shifting evidence-based treatments to juvenile probation officers (JPOs) may help, but could increase surveillance and thus be iatrogenic for legal outcomes. Task-shifting contingency management (CM) to JPOs was examined for increased youth legal system consequences.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nData were from a randomized clinical trial that randomized 32 JPOs in Idaho to probation as usual (PAU) or family-based CM integrated into probation. Then, 160 youth with substance use disorder on probation were randomized to JPOs delivering PAU or JPO-delivered CM. Legal system records (charges and detentions) spanning 18 months before and after randomization were obtained for each youth from the state database.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nFor CM and PAU groups, respectively, 32.6% versus 51.4% had at least one charge postrandomization, 22.1% versus 20.3% had at least one detention, and median charge count was 0.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-1.0) versus 1.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-2.0). Intent-to-treat generalized linear mixed effects models nested youth within JPOs. Groups did not differ on charge count (event rates = 1.12; 95% CI [0.29, 4.36]) or likelihood of detention (OR = 1.54; 95% CI [0.65, 3.65]). However, CM youth had a significantly lower likelihood of receiving a charge (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.21, 0.83]), with a predicted probability of 31% (95% CI [21%, 42%]) versus 52% for PAU (95% CI [40%, 63%]).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nYouth legal system consequences do not worsen when JPOs deliver CM. The likelihood of a new charge actually decreases when JPOs deliver CM. Task-shifting CM for youth substance use to JPOs could increase treatment access in rural communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"274 1","pages":"151-158"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0001002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Youth substance use disorder is a significant problem in rural communities, yet treatment access is negligible. Task-shifting evidence-based treatments to juvenile probation officers (JPOs) may help, but could increase surveillance and thus be iatrogenic for legal outcomes. Task-shifting contingency management (CM) to JPOs was examined for increased youth legal system consequences. METHOD Data were from a randomized clinical trial that randomized 32 JPOs in Idaho to probation as usual (PAU) or family-based CM integrated into probation. Then, 160 youth with substance use disorder on probation were randomized to JPOs delivering PAU or JPO-delivered CM. Legal system records (charges and detentions) spanning 18 months before and after randomization were obtained for each youth from the state database. RESULTS For CM and PAU groups, respectively, 32.6% versus 51.4% had at least one charge postrandomization, 22.1% versus 20.3% had at least one detention, and median charge count was 0.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-1.0) versus 1.0 (interquartile range, 0.0-2.0). Intent-to-treat generalized linear mixed effects models nested youth within JPOs. Groups did not differ on charge count (event rates = 1.12; 95% CI [0.29, 4.36]) or likelihood of detention (OR = 1.54; 95% CI [0.65, 3.65]). However, CM youth had a significantly lower likelihood of receiving a charge (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.21, 0.83]), with a predicted probability of 31% (95% CI [21%, 42%]) versus 52% for PAU (95% CI [40%, 63%]). CONCLUSIONS Youth legal system consequences do not worsen when JPOs deliver CM. The likelihood of a new charge actually decreases when JPOs deliver CM. Task-shifting CM for youth substance use to JPOs could increase treatment access in rural communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

青少年药物使用任务转移应急管理对农村缓刑官员的法律后果：随机临床试验的次要结果。

目的：青少年物质使用障碍是农村社区的一个重要问题，但治疗可及性却可以忽略不计。将循证治疗的任务转移给青少年缓刑官（JPOs）可能会有所帮助，但可能会增加监督，从而导致法律后果的医源性。对任务转移应急管理（CM）到初级警务人员进行了审查，以增加青年法律制度的后果。方法数据来自一项随机临床试验，该试验将爱达荷州的32名JPOs随机分为常规缓刑（PAU）或基于家庭的CM纳入缓刑。然后，160名缓刑的物质使用障碍青少年被随机分配到jpo提供PAU或jpo提供CM。从国家数据库中获得了每个青少年随机化前后18个月的法律系统记录（指控和拘留）。结果CM组和PAU组分别有32.6%和51.4%的受试者随机化后至少有一次电荷，22.1%和20.3%的受试者至少有一次滞留，中位电荷计数分别为0.0（四分位数范围为0.0-1.0）和1.0（四分位数范围为0.0-2.0）。意向-治疗广义线性混合效应模型嵌套青年在jpo。各组在指控次数（事件率= 1.12;95% CI[0.29, 4.36]）或拘留可能性（or = 1.54; 95% CI[0.65, 3.65]）上没有差异。然而，CM青年接受充电的可能性明显较低（OR = 0.42; 95% CI[0.21, 0.83]），预测概率为31% (95% CI[21%, 42%])，而PAU的预测概率为52% （95% CI[40%, 63%]）。结论少管所实施CM后，青少年法律制度后果没有恶化。当jpo交付CM时，新收费的可能性实际上降低了。将青少年药物使用的CM任务转移到JPOs可以增加农村社区的治疗可及性。（PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA，版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

3.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.