Designing and piloting a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for opioid prevention among youth in the legal system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Youth in the legal system are vulnerable to initiation and escalation of opioid use. The transition period during which a young person is released from the institutional setting to the community is a critical window of opportunity for preventive intervention targeting the uptake and intensification of opioid and other drug use. Adaptive preventive interventions are a promising approach to systematically varying the timing and intensity of substance use preventive interventions for these youth. METHOD: = 1.84) examined the feasibility and acceptability of adaptive and nonadaptive preventive interventions that incorporate components of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach with Assertive Continuing Care, Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Treatment, and Motivational Interviewing using the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial study design. Participants completed assessments at baseline, 1-month postrelease, and 2-months postrelease. RESULTS: Enrollment rate was 65%. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of enrolled youth had substance use disorder at intake. Moreover, 60% of enrolled participants completed the 2-month postrelease follow-up assessment. Participants reported high satisfaction with the interventionist interactions, and 95% indicated they would recommend the program to other youth. The pilot study revealed the need for several adaptations to study and intervention protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides evidence of the feasibility of a research-practice partnership with state juvenile rehabilitation facilities, successful recruitment of youth involved in the legal system, and feasibility and acceptability of adaptive preventive interventions spanning pre- and post-release for legal system-involved youth. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".