Substance AbusePhase 2AGTONCT00780338
Enhancing Prevention Capacity With Developmental Assets and Getting to Outcomes
A Phase 2 study testing Assets Getting To Outcomes in people with Substance Abuse, run by RAND at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Alcohol and other drug use among youth is costly for communities. More research is needed about how to best support community based prevention programs and how community prevention expertise can inform the research process. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Substance Abuse
- What is being tested?
- Assets Getting To Outcomes
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 376 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2008to Mar 2014
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Related to the programs of the 12 participating coalitions, the inclusion criterion is being an AOD-related universal, selective, or indicated prevention program or initiative.
Who cannot join
- The exclusion criterion is being a case identification, treatment, or after-care program.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Alcohol and other drug use among youth is costly for communities. More research is needed about how to best support community based prevention programs and how community prevention expertise can inform the research process. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has funded a 5 year collaboration of the RAND Corporation, Search Institute and its training division, Vision Training Associates, Communities for Children and Youth, and the University of Southern Maine to implement and assess the impact on prevention coalitions, the combination of two complimentary, community-based interventions: Developmental Assets, which supports community mobilization and collaboration to promote positive youth development, and Getting To Outcomes (GTO), which enhances community capacity to complete critical prevention tasks (e.g., evaluation). The purpose of the project is to investigate: 1) How well is the Assets-GTO intervention delivered, how much is it used, and what coalitions think about it; 2) The extent to which the Assets-GTO approach enhances the prevention capacity (knowledge, attitudes, and skills) of individual coalition members and the quality of prevention performance; and 3) Whether enhanced prevention capacity improves alcohol and drug outcomes among youth. Twelve community-based prevention coalitions in Maine (part of Communities for Children and Youth) will participate. Six coalitions-determined at random-will receive manuals, training, and on-site technical assistance consisting of bi-Weekly meetings between A-GTO 4 ME! and key coalition staff. The other six coalitions will continue practice as usual, but will receive an abbreviated version of the Assets-GTO intervention near the end of the project. A Community Research Workgroup made of coalition representatives will review all aspects of the study and interim findings and facilitate dissemination on A-GTO 4 ME! The project will demonstrate and evaluate strategies to strengthen the prevention capacity of community organizations that can be used broadly across many types of programs.
Read the detailed description
Alcohol and drug (AOD) use is problematic in many communities. Despite the spread of evidence-based prevention, communities still face difficulty in achieving outcomes demonstrated by prevention science. This "gap" is because resources are limited, prevention is complex, and communities often lack the capacity to adapt and implement "off the shelf" programs. Also, many evidence-based programs aim to improve deficits-- despite evidence showing the need to also promote positive youth development through community-wide efforts. Common ways to bridge this gap, such as information dissemination, fail to change practice or outcomes at the local level in part because it does not sufficiently address capacity or use community input. Therefore, building a community's prevention capacity, through greater collaboration between scientists and practitioners, with a focus on positive youth development, is a method that could improve the quality of prevention and outcomes. This project will assess the combination of two models that are specifically designed to foster such an approach: Getting To Outcomes (GTO) and Developmental Assets. They are complimentary: GTO enhances local capacity for discrete prevention tasks (e.g., evaluation); Developmental Assets supports community mobilization and collaboration to promote positive youth development. Combining the content, tools, and resources of these two SAMHSA (Best Practice) prevention planning processes has the potential to improve the quality of prevention programming and accountability more than either would do alone. Quasi - experimental and case studies of both Assets and GTO have demonstrated feasibility in community settings and yielded evidence suggesting these models can help communities mobilize and improve prevention practices and outcomes. As a next step, we propose a randomized controlled efficacy trial with elements of an effectiveness study (i.e., implementation in community-based setting) comparing 6 AOD prevention coalitions using Assets-GTO with 6 similar coalitions who are not. Such blended designs that emphasize generalizability and external validity are now recommended for community-based research. We will use a participatory research approach in which a Workgroup of coalition representatives will be actively involved in all phases of the research. Assets-GTO's impact on prevention capacity will be assessed at the program level (5 per coalition) with staff interviews and at the individual level with a Coalition Survey (each has about 54 members). A survey of schools in which the coalitions operate will assess the impact on AOD use and positive developmental outcomes among the programs' target populations. Organizational change theories will guide Assets-GTO implementation; standardized measures will track Assets-GTO adoption. Results will have implications for how to ensure that prevention programming found to be effective through research trials is successfully delivered in real world settings, a priority for NIDA and NIAAA. Project Narrative The demonstration and evaluation of the Assets-Getting To Outcomes system for the prevention of alcohol and drug (AOD) use outlined in this proposal has direct relevance to public health. This is because AOD use among youth is a significant health problem facing US communities. The Assets-Getting To Outcomes system is designed to help communities engaged in AOD prevention work to better plan, implement, and self-evaluate their prevention strategies in order to help them achieve positive results, thereby positively impacting the mortality and morbidity of youth at the local level. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The demonstration and evaluation of the Assets-Getting to Outcomes system for the prevention of alcohol and drug (AOD) use outlined in this proposal has direct relevance to public health. This is because AOD use among youth is a significant health problem facing US communities. The Assets-Getting To Outcomes system is designed to help communities engaged in AOD prevention work to better plan, implement, and self-evaluate their prevention strategies in order to help them achieve positive results, thereby positively impacting the mortality and morbidity of youth at the local level.
- Conditions
- Substance Abuse
- Being tested
- Assets Getting To Outcomes
- Medical subject headings
- Substance-Related Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Assets Getting To OutcomesOther
Face to Face Training Assets Getting To Outcomes Manuals Technical Assistance
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Cohort 1: receives the Assets Getting To Outcomes intervention first. The AGTO intervention includes three types of assistance which are adapted to fit the needs and priorities of the individuals involved, as well as the inner and outer setting: (1) a manual of text and tools; (2) face-to-face training, and (3) onsite technical assistance (TA). These three types of assistance aim to improve the implementation process for each program. Two full-time, Maine-based staff, one with a master's and one with a bachelor's degree, provided AGTO tools, training, and TA to the intervention coalitions and programs during the two year intervention period. The tools are in the Search Institute-published manual, Getting To Outcomes with Developmental Assets: Ten steps to measuring success in youth programs and communities, which all intervention participants received. Receives: Other: Assets Getting To Outcomes |
| 2 | Active comparator | Cohort 2: receives the Assets Getting To Outcomes intervention second, after Cohort 1 is done receiving the intervention. Receives: Other: Assets Getting To Outcomes |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Prevention Capacity-GTO Efficacy (Intent to Treat)
Assessed in the Coalition Survey, prevention capacity was defined as efficacy and behaviors of practitioners. GTO efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing the AGTO 10 steps. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale.
Measured: Baseline, mid-point (1 year), posttest (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - GTO Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in AGTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS GTO Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in AGTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in assets activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity-Assets Efficacy (Intent to Treat)
Assessed in the Coalition Survey, prevention capacity was defined as efficacy and behaviors of practitioners. Assets efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing the Developmental Assets model. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale.
Measured: Baseline, mid (1 year), post (2 years)
Secondary outcomes (7)
Prevention Performance - Total Score (Descriptive Means)
A structured interview was used to assess the impact of AGTO on prevention practitioners' performance of tasks associated with high-quality prevention. Using the interview responses, a set of ratings were made assessing performance of activities in seven key domains: goals and objectives, best practices, planning, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, continuous quality improvement, and sustainability. The ratings are made on 10 items (or "components") that assess how well each of the above mentioned activities are performed over the last year. Each component has seven response choices, described with specific, observable behaviors, that range from "highly faithful=7" to "highly divergent=1" from ideal performance. The total score is an average of the 10 components, and has the same range as the individual components ("highly faithful=7" to "highly divergent=1" from ideal performance)
Measured: baseline, baseline to mid (1 year), mid to posttest (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - GTO Behavior - (User v Non-User Analysis)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in GTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale. Same analysis/measure as the intent to treat, but instead just comparing users of AGTO to non-users within the AGTO assigned group. "Use" was determined by six items added to the Mid and Post Coalition Survey, called the AGTO Participation Index. If individuals received any hours of technical assistance, they received an additional point on the Index. Then, a dichotomous measure was created if a user participated (AGTO Participation Index >=1) at either Mid or Post.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - GTO Efficacy (User vs Non-user Analyses)
The GTO efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing the AGTO 10 steps. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale. Same analysis/measure as the intent to treat, but instead just comparing users of AGTO to non-users within the AGTO assigned group. "Use" was determined by six items added to the Mid and Post Coalition Survey, called the AGTO Participation Index. If individuals received any hours of technical assistance, they received an additional point on the Index.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS GTO BEHAVIORS (User vs Non-user Analyses)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in AGTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale. Same analysis/measure as the intent to treat, but instead just comparing users of AGTO to non-users within the AGTO assigned group. "Use" was determined by six items added to the Mid and Post Coalition Survey, called the AGTO Participation Index. If individuals received any hours of technical assistance, they received an additional point on the Index. Then, a dichotomous measure was created if a user participated (AGTO Participation Index >=1) at either Mid or Post.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - Assets Behavior - (User v Non-User Analysis)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in assets activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale. Same analysis/measure as the intent to treat, but instead just comparing users of AGTO to non-users within the AGTO assigned group. "Use" was determined by six items added to the Mid and Post Coalition Survey, called the AGTO Participation Index. If individuals received any hours of technical assistance, they received an additional point on the Index. Then, a dichotomous measure was created if a user participated (AGTO Participation Index >=1) at either Mid or Post.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - Assets Efficacy (User vs Non-user Analyses)
The Assets efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing assets activities. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale. Same analysis/measure as the intent to treat, but instead just comparing users of AGTO to non-users within the AGTO assigned group. "Use" was determined by six items added to the Mid and Post Coalition Survey, called the AGTO Participation Index. If individuals received any hours of technical assistance, they received an additional point on the Index.
Measured: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Performance - Total Score (Percent Change)
A structured interview was used to assess the impact of AGTO on prevention practitioners' performance of tasks associated with high-quality prevention. Using the interview responses, a set of ratings were made assessing performance of activities in seven key domains: goals and objectives, best practices, planning, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, continuous quality improvement, and sustainability. The ratings are made on 10 items (or "components") that assess how well each of the above mentioned activities are performed over the last year. Each component has seven response choices, described with specific, observable behaviors, that range from "highly faithful=7" to "highly divergent=1" from ideal performance. The total score is an average of the 10 components, and has the same range as the individual components ("highly faithful=7" to "highly divergent=1" from ideal performance)
Measured: baseline, baseline to mid (1 year), mid to posttest (2 years)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Oct 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2008
- Primary completionJan 2013
- Study completionMar 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Substance AbuseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 376 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- RAND
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Search Institute, Communities for Children and Youth, University of Southern Maine, Visions Training Associates
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Matthew Chinman, PhD, Principal investigator, RAND
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00780338
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NIDA-023277
- Other IDs
- R01DA023277
- Acronym
- AGTO
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 24 Oct 2008
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Q Burkhart, Clifford M, Corsello M, Duffey T, Hunter S, Jones M, Lahti M, Malone PS, Paddock S, Phillips A, Savell S, Scales PC, Tellett-Royce N. Establishing and evaluating the key functions of an interactive systems framework using an assets-getting to outcomes intervention. Am J Community Psychol. 2012 Dec;50(3-4):295-310. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9504-z.
PubMed 22446975Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Paddock S, Phillips A, Scales P, Slaughter ME. An intervention to improve program implementation: findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 7;8:87. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-87.
PubMed 23924279Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Burkhart Q, Malone PS, Paddock SM, Clifford M, Corsello M, Duffey T, Hunter S, Jones M, Lahti M, Phillips A, Savell S, Scales PC, Tellett-Royce N. Intervening with practitioners to improve the quality of prevention: one-year findings from a randomized trial of assets-getting to outcomes. J Prim Prev. 2013 Jun;34(3):173-91. doi: 10.1007/s10935-013-0302-7.
PubMed 23605473
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Enhancing Prevention Capacity With Developmental Assets and Getting to Outcomes
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00780338
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AGTO / NIDA-023277
- Conditions
- Substance Abuse
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 376 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- RANDUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Search Institute, Communities for Children and Youth, University of Southern Maine, Visions Training Associates
- Study start
- Jun 2008
- Primary completion
- Jan 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Oct 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 7 May 2015
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Alcohol and other drug use among youth is costly for communities. More research is needed about how to best support community based prevention programs and how community prevention expertise can inform the research process. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has funded a 5 year collaboration of the RAND Corporation, Search Institute and its training division, Vision Training Associates, Communities for Children and Youth, and the University of Southern Maine to implement and assess the impact on prevention coalitions, the combination of two complimentary, community-based interventions: Developmental Assets, which supports community mobilization and collaboration to promote positive youth development, and Getting To Outcomes (GTO), which enhances community capacity to complete critical prevention tasks (e.g., evaluation). The purpose of the project is to investigate: 1) How well is the Assets-GTO intervention delivered, how much is it used, and what coalitions think about it; 2) The extent to which the Assets-GTO approach enhances the prevention capacity (knowledge, attitudes, and skills) of individual coalition members and the quality of prevention performance; and 3) Whether enhanced prevention capacity improves alcohol and drug outcomes among youth. Twelve community-based prevention coalitions in Maine (part of Communities for Children and Youth) will participate. Six coalitions-determined at random-will receive manuals, training, and on-site technical assistance consisting of bi-Weekly meetings between A-GTO 4 ME! and key coalition staff. The other six coalitions will continue practice as usual, but will receive an abbreviated version of the Assets-GTO intervention near the end of the project. A Community Research Workgroup made of coalition representatives will review all aspects of the study and interim findings and facilitate dissemination on A-GTO 4 ME! The project will demonstrate and evaluate strategies to strengthen the prevention capacity of community organizations that can be used broadly across many types of programs.
Detailed description
Alcohol and drug (AOD) use is problematic in many communities. Despite the spread of evidence-based prevention, communities still face difficulty in achieving outcomes demonstrated by prevention science. This "gap" is because resources are limited, prevention is complex, and communities often lack the capacity to adapt and implement "off the shelf" programs. Also, many evidence-based programs aim to improve deficits-- despite evidence showing the need to also promote positive youth development through community-wide efforts. Common ways to bridge this gap, such as information dissemination, fail to change practice or outcomes at the local level in part because it does not sufficiently address capacity or use community input. Therefore, building a community's prevention capacity, through greater collaboration between scientists and practitioners, with a focus on positive youth development, is a method that could improve the quality of prevention and outcomes. This project will assess the combination of two models that are specifically designed to foster such an approach: Getting To Outcomes (GTO) and Developmental Assets. They are complimentary: GTO enhances local capacity for discrete prevention tasks (e.g., evaluation); Developmental Assets supports community mobilization and collaboration to promote positive youth development. Combining the content, tools, and resources of these two SAMHSA (Best Practice) prevention planning processes has the potential to improve the quality of prevention programming and accountability more than either would do alone. Quasi - experimental and case studies of both Assets and GTO have demonstrated feasibility in community settings and yielded evidence suggesting these models can help communities mobilize and improve prevention practices and outcomes. As a next step, we propose a randomized controlled efficacy trial with elements of an effectiveness study (i.e., implementation in community-based setting) comparing 6 AOD prevention coalitions using Assets-GTO with 6 similar coalitions who are not. Such blended designs that emphasize generalizability and external validity are now recommended for community-based research. We will use a participatory research approach in which a Workgroup of coalition representatives will be actively involved in all phases of the research. Assets-GTO's impact on prevention capacity will be assessed at the program level (5 per coalition) with staff interviews and at the individual level with a Coalition Survey (each has about 54 members). A survey of schools in which the coalitions operate will assess the impact on AOD use and positive developmental outcomes among the programs' target populations. Organizational change theories will guide Assets-GTO implementation; standardized measures will track Assets-GTO adoption. Results will have implications for how to ensure that prevention programming found to be effective through research trials is successfully delivered in real world settings, a priority for NIDA and NIAAA. Project Narrative The demonstration and evaluation of the Assets-Getting To Outcomes system for the prevention of alcohol and drug (AOD) use outlined in this proposal has direct relevance to public health. This is because AOD use among youth is a significant health problem facing US communities. The Assets-Getting To Outcomes system is designed to help communities engaged in AOD prevention work to better plan, implement, and self-evaluate their prevention strategies in order to help them achieve positive results, thereby positively impacting the mortality and morbidity of youth at the local level. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The demonstration and evaluation of the Assets-Getting to Outcomes system for the prevention of alcohol and drug (AOD) use outlined in this proposal has direct relevance to public health. This is because AOD use among youth is a significant health problem facing US communities. The Assets-Getting To Outcomes system is designed to help communities engaged in AOD prevention work to better plan, implement, and self-evaluate their prevention strategies in order to help them achieve positive results, thereby positively impacting the mortality and morbidity of youth at the local level.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Other: Assets Getting To OutcomesCohort 1: receives the Assets Getting To Outcomes intervention first. The AGTO intervention includes three types of assistance which are adapted to fit the needs and priorities of the individuals involved, as well as the inner and outer setting: (1) a manual of text and tools; (2) face-to-face training, and (3) onsite technical assistance (TA). These three types of assistance aim to improve the implementation process for each program. Two full-time, Maine-based staff, one with a master's and one with a bachelor's degree, provided AGTO tools, training, and TA to the intervention coalitions and programs during the two year intervention period. The tools are in the Search Institute-published manual, Getting To Outcomes with Developmental Assets: Ten steps to measuring success in youth programs and communities, which all intervention participants received. |
| 2 | Active comparator | Other: Assets Getting To OutcomesCohort 2: receives the Assets Getting To Outcomes intervention second, after Cohort 1 is done receiving the intervention. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Related to the programs of the 12 participating coalitions, the inclusion criterion is being an AOD-related universal, selective, or indicated prevention program or initiative.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The exclusion criterion is being a case identification, treatment, or after-care program.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Assets Getting To OutcomesFace to Face Training Assets Getting To Outcomes Manuals Technical Assistance | Other | 1, 2 |
Primary outcome
Prevention Capacity-GTO Efficacy (Intent to Treat)
Time frame: Baseline, mid-point (1 year), posttest (2 years)
Assessed in the Coalition Survey, prevention capacity was defined as efficacy and behaviors of practitioners. GTO efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing the AGTO 10 steps. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale.
Prevention Capacity - GTO Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in AGTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS GTO Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in AGTO activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS Behaviors (Intent to Treat)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
This scale is the sum of 11 items with seven-point scales (1="never" to 7="very often") assessing the frequency with which respondents engaged in assets activities during the previous 12 months. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .06 change on the original 1-7 scale. A 17-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-7 scale.
Prevention Capacity-Assets Efficacy (Intent to Treat)
Time frame: Baseline, mid (1 year), post (2 years)
Assessed in the Coalition Survey, prevention capacity was defined as efficacy and behaviors of practitioners. Assets efficacy scale is the sum of 10 items using a three-point scale (1="would need a great deal of help to carry out this task", 2="could carry out this task, but would need some help", 3="could carry out this task without any help") asking about activities associated with doing the Developmental Assets model. The sum was then transformed to be on a 1-100% scale. A percentage point change is equivalent to a .02 change on the original 1-3 scale. A 50-percentage point change would be equivalent to a one-point change on the original 1-3 scale.
7 secondary outcomes
Prevention Performance - Total Score (Descriptive Means)
Time frame: baseline, baseline to mid (1 year), mid to posttest (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - GTO Behavior - (User v Non-User Analysis)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - GTO Efficacy (User vs Non-user Analyses)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - ASSETS GTO BEHAVIORS (User vs Non-user Analyses)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - Assets Behavior - (User v Non-User Analysis)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Capacity - Assets Efficacy (User vs Non-user Analyses)
Time frame: Baseline, Mid (1 year), Post (2 years)
Prevention Performance - Total Score (Percent Change)
Time frame: baseline, baseline to mid (1 year), mid to posttest (2 years)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 22446975Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Q Burkhart, Clifford M, Corsello M, Duffey T, Hunter S, Jones M, Lahti M, Malone PS, Paddock S, Phillips A, Savell S, Scales PC, Tellett-Royce N. Establishing and evaluating the key functions of an interactive systems framework using an assets-getting to outcomes intervention. Am J Community Psychol. 2012 Dec;50(3-4):295-310. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9504-z.
- Results publication: PubMed 23924279Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Paddock S, Phillips A, Scales P, Slaughter ME. An intervention to improve program implementation: findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 7;8:87. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-87.
- Results publication: PubMed 23605473Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Burkhart Q, Malone PS, Paddock SM, Clifford M, Corsello M, Duffey T, Hunter S, Jones M, Lahti M, Phillips A, Savell S, Scales PC, Tellett-Royce N. Intervening with practitioners to improve the quality of prevention: one-year findings from a randomized trial of assets-getting to outcomes. J Prim Prev. 2013 Jun;34(3):173-91. doi: 10.1007/s10935-013-0302-7.
Related trials for Substance Abuse
Not yet recruiting
A Hybrid Type 1 Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online and Text-Messaging Intervention to Prevent Alcohol and Cannabis Initiation, Escalation, and Consequences Among First-Year College Students
Alcohol, Cannabis
Not yet recruiting
QAIAx - SGI/SI Smart Health Cities: Microcity Enclave Program (Quantum SI/AGI Agency a/k/a AI City Hall Project - UPSTO App Nos. 64/074,526, 64/063,557, 64/105,164, 63/903,181, 63/729,428, 64/125,360; USPTO EO 9424 Assignment ID: 2101042 / ARN: REEL/FRAME: 76481/0026 - OUSD-R&E, Department of War)
Asperger's Disorder, Asperger Disorder
RecruitingPhase 1
Acute Effects of Cannabis on Cognition and Affect
Cannabis Use
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Lemborexant vs Clonidine vs Sedatives to Treat Insomnia in Chronic Pain Patients
Chronic Insomnia, Chronic Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Treatment Outcomes Under a Standardized Treatment Protocol in Patients Suffered Substance Abuse Related Voiding Dysfunction
Voiding Dysfunction, Substance Abuse
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Matthew Chinman, PhD principal investigator
RAND
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Assets Getting To Outcomes in people with Substance Abuse, run by RAND at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 7 May 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Prevention Capacity-GTO Efficacy (Intent to Treat) (time frame: Baseline, mid-point (1 year), posttest (2 years)). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00780338, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2015.