Multidimensional Family Therapy

Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) focuses on addressing the needs of adolescents and young adults with substance use, delinquency, mental health, and emotional problems. MDFT is an integrated therapy model that incorporates and supports parents, families, and community partners (e.g., child welfare, schools). MDFT seeks to enhance coping, problem solving, and communication skills; stabilize mental health issues; reduce youth substance use; and improve school achievement among adolescents and young adults. MDFT also aims to improve parenting skills, parental functioning, family communication, attachment, and to reduce parenting stress.

MDFT is rated as a supported practice because at least one study carried out in a usual care or practice setting achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 6 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.

Date Last Reviewed (Handbook Version 1.0): Aug 2020

Sources

The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: the program website, the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the program manual, and the studies reviewed.

Program/Service Webpage Updated: Dec 2020

This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0

Target Population

MDFT serves adolescents and young adults (9 to 26 years old) with substance use, delinquency, mental health, academic/vocational, and emotional problems. At least one parent/guardian or parental figure must also participate in treatment.

Program or Service Delivery and Implementation

Dosage

MDFT intensity varies based on the setting and severity of participants’ needs. The recommended dosage ranges from 1 to 3 weekly sessions over 3 to 6 months. Each session lasts approximately 45 to 90 minutes. Additional support is provided between sessions via text and phone, as well as at community meetings (e.g., school, court, child welfare). Session length and frequency are designed to decrease over time with the goal of reducing to one session per week for the last four to six weeks of treatment. Sessions are divided roughly proportionally among those held with the adolescent/young adult, parents, and families. Additionally, community sessions are held with schools and representatives of other key systems throughout treatment (e.g., child welfare, juvenile delinquency).

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

MDFT can be delivered in diverse settings and systems of care including clinical offices, in-home, community settings, outpatient, intensive outpatient, inpatient and residential facilities, and schools. The model can also be integrated within non-clinical residential settings, such as boarding schools or detention centers.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

Home
Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office

Education, Certifications and Training

MDFT is delivered by therapists with master’s degrees in social work, counseling, marriage and family therapy, or related clinical fields. MDFT therapists may receive additional support from therapist assistants with bachelor’s degrees. To deliver services, therapists must participate in approximately 5 months of MDFT-specific training. This training includes three on-site trainings, weekly consultations, online education, video reviews and live supervision of the therapist’s work. Ongoing feedback of therapist adherence and competence is provided using rating systems and written tests. At the end of this training, therapists are eligible to receive an MDFT certification. Supervisor training lasts an additional 4 to 6 months. Therapists and supervisors must re-certify annually. MDFT training is delivered virtually through videoconferencing and in-person at the clinical site.

A basic introduction to MDFT with continuing education units (CEU) is available through a 2-day introductory workshop for agencies and clinicians not seeking full MDFT Certification Training.

There is also an MDFT Train-the-Trainer (TTT) program that includes intensive workshops, live and video review of trainer training, and support with consultation calls.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Liddle, H. A. (2007). Multidimensional Family Therapy: Therapist's treatment manual. Center for Treatment Research on Adolescent Drug Abuse, University of Miami.

Available languages

MDFT materials are available in English, French, German, and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

MDFT Fact Sheets

For More Information

Website: www.mdft.org

Phone: (786) 668-2088

Email: gdakof@mdft.org

Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.

Extent of Evidence

Results of Search and Review	Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Multidimensional Family Therapy
Identified in Search	8
Eligible for Review	2
Rated High	2
Rated Moderate	0
Rated Low	0
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm	0

Summary of Findings

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.17 6	2 (15)	465	Favorable: 6 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Social functioning	0.44 17	1 (4)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Substance use	0.55 20	1 (16)	83	Favorable: 8 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior	0.14 5	2 (25)	306	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 21 Unfavorable: 1
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	0.51 19	1 (4)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.00 0	1 (12)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 2
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.00 0	2 (9)	440	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0

Individual Study Findings

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings	Months after treatment when outcome measured
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.17 6	2 (15)	465	Favorable: 6 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2004)
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems (6 week interim)	0.44 16	-	83	-	0
Youth Self Report: Externalizing Problems (end of treatment)	0.64 * 23	-	83	-	0
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems (6 week interim)	0.41 15	-	83	-	0
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems (end of treatment)	0.43 16	-	83	-	0
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Internalized Distress	0.89 * 31	-	83	-	2
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs: Internalized Distress	0.53 * 20	-	83	-	8
Conduct Grades (Academic Period 1)	0.51 * 19	-	83	-	0
Conduct Grades (Academic Period 2)	0.22 8	-	83	-	0
Conduct Grades (Academic Period 3)	0.65 * 24	-	83	-	3
Conduct Grades (Academic Period 4)	0.57 * 21	-	83	-	5
Study 10649 - MDFT vs Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Schaub, 2014)
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems	0.08 3	-	346	-	0
Youth Self Report: Internalizing Problems	0.08 3	-	382	-	6
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing Problems	0.04 1	-	341	-	0
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing Problems	0.04 1	-	363	-	6
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Problems	0.20 7	-	341	-	0
Child well-being: Social functioning	0.44 17	1 (4)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (6-week post-baseline)	-0.10 -4	-	83	-	0
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (end of treatment)	0.79 * 28	-	83	-	0
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (6-month post-baseline)	0.62 * 23	-	83	-	2
National Youth Survey: Peer Delinquency Scale (12-month post-baseline)	0.48 * 18	-	83	-	8
Child well-being: Substance use	0.55 20	1 (16)	83	Favorable: 8 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (6-week post-baseline)	0.51 * 19	-	83	-	0
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (end of treatment)	0.47 * 18	-	83	-	0
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (6-month post-baseline)	0.66 * 24	-	83	-	2
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Substance Use Problems (12-month post-baseline)	0.59 * 22	-	83	-	8
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: % w/ SU Problems (6-week post-baseline)	0.93 * 32	-	83	-	0
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: % w/ SU Problems (end of treatment)	0.45 17	-	83	-	0
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: % w/ SU Problems (6-month post-baseline)	0.87 * 30	-	83	-	2
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: % w/ SU Problems (12-month post-baseline)	Null not calculated	-	83	-	8
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (6-week post-baseline)	0.25 9	-	83	-	0
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (end of treatment)	0.48 * 18	-	83	-	0
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (6-month post-baseline)	0.40 15	-	83	-	2
Timeline Follow-Back Method: 30 Day Substance Use Frequency (12-month post-baseline)	0.66 * 24	-	83	-	8
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Use in 30 Days (6-week post-baseline)	0.28 11	-	83	-	0
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Use in 30 Days (end of treatment)	0.61 22	-	83	-	0
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Use in 30 Days (6-month post-baseline)	0.55 20	-	83	-	2
Timeline Follow-Back Method: Percent with Any Use in 30 Days (12-month post-baseline)	0.55 20	-	83	-	8
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior	0.14 5	2 (25)	306	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 21 Unfavorable: 1	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (% w/ Any Delinquency; 6-week post-baseline)	0.82 * 29	-	81	-	0
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (% w/ Any Delinquency; end of treatment)	0.54 20	-	81	-	0
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (% w/ Any Delinquency; 6-month post-baseline)	-0.01 0	-	83	-	2
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (% w/ Any Delinquency; 12-month post-baseline)	0.23 9	-	83	-	8
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (6-week post-baseline)	0.36 14	-	83	-	0
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (end of treatment)	0.46 * 17	-	83	-	0
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (6-month post-baseline)	0.20 7	-	83	-	2
National Youth Survey: Self-Report Delinquency Scale (12-month post-baseline)	0.25 9	-	83	-	8
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Geneva/Hague sites) (van der Pol, 2018a)
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Criminal Offenses in the Past 90 Days	-0.05 -2	-	104	-	0
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Criminal Offenses in the Past 90 Days	0.22 8	-	114	-	6
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Property Crimes in the Past 90 Days	-0.17 -6	-	77	-	0
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Property Crimes in the Past 90 Days	0.26 10	-	113	-	6
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Violent Crimes in the Past 90 Days	0.19 7	-	73	-	0
Self Report Delinquency Scale: Number of Violent Crimes in the Past 90 Days	0.63 * 23	-	107	-	6
Study 10649 - MDFT vs Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Hague site) (van der Pol, 2018b)
Total Number of Police-Arrest Offenses in Past Year	-0.15 -5	-	109	-	6
Total Number of Police-Arrest Offenses in Past Year	0.10 4	-	109	-	18
Total Number of Police-Arrest Offenses in Past Year	-0.25 -9	-	109	-	30
Total Number of Police-Arrest Violent Offenses in Past Year	-0.43 * -16	-	109	-	6
Total Number of Police-Arrest Violent Offenses in Past Year	0.23 9	-	109	-	18
Total Number of Police-Arrest Violent Offenses in Past Year	0.23 9	-	109	-	30
Total Number of Police-Arrest Property Offenses in Past Year	0.20 7	-	109	-	6
Total Number of Police-Arrest Property Offenses in Past Year	0.13 5	-	109	-	18
Total Number of Police-Arrest Property Offenses in Past Year	0.05 2	-	109	-	30
Time to First Registered Offense	Null not calculated	-	109	-	30
Severity of Police-Arrest Offenses	Null not calculated	-	109	-	30
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	0.51 19	1 (4)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Academic Grades (Academic Period 1)	0.51 * 19	-	83	-	0
Academic Grades (Academic Period 2)	0.22 8	-	83	-	0
Academic Grades (Academic Period 3)	0.70 * 25	-	83	-	3
Academic Grades (Academic Period 4)	0.61 * 22	-	83	-	5
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.00 0	1 (12)	83	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 7 Unfavorable: 2	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Henderson, 2009)
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parental Monitoring (6-week post-baseline)	0.53 * 20	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parental Monitoring (end of treatment)	0.73 * 26	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parent-Child Relationship Quality (6-week post-baseline)	0.50 * 19	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Parent-Child Relationship Quality (end of treatment)	0.43 16	-	83	-	0
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2009)
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (6-week post-baseline)	-0.34 -13	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (end of treatment)	-0.47 * -17	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (6-month post-baseline)	-0.13 -5	-	83	-	2
Adolescent Daily Interview: Positive Family Interactions (12-month post-baseline)	0.09 3	-	83	-	8
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (6-week post-baseline)	0.02 0	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (end of treatment)	-0.49 * -18	-	83	-	0
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (6-month post-baseline)	-0.43 -16	-	83	-	2
Adolescent Daily Interview: Negative Family Interactions (12-month post-baseline)	-0.43 -16	-	83	-	8
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.00 0	2 (9)	440	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy (Liddle, 2004)
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion (6 week interim)	0.39 15	-	83	-	0
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion (end of treatment)	0.61 * 22	-	83	-	0
Family Environment Scale: Conflict (6 week interim)	-0.22 -8	-	83	-	0
Family Environment Scale: Conflict (end of treatment)	0.12 4	-	83	-	0
Study 10649 - MDFT vs Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Schaub, 2014)
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	-0.10 -3	-	345	-	0
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	-0.05 -1	-	308	-	3
Family Environment Scale: Conflict	-0.10 -4	-	357	-	6
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion	-0.02 0	-	345	-	0
Family Environment Scale: Cohesion	0.02 0	-	357	-	6

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.

Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.

Study Participant Characteristics

The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.

The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.

For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings
Study Location	Study Year	Age or Grade-level	Race, Ethnicity, Nationality	Gender	Populations of Interest*	Household Socioeconomic Status
Study 10644 - MDFT vs. Peer Group Therapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Miami, FL, USA	--	Average age: 14 years	42% Hispanic 38% African American 11% Haitian or Jamaican 4% Other 3% White (non-Hispanic)	74% Male 26% Female	100% referred for outpatient treatment for a substance abuse problem, 47% met ASAM criteria for substance abuse, 16% met criteria for substance dependence; 39% met criteria for conduct disorder, 29% met criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 9% met criteria for a depressive disorder; 47% were involved in the juvenile justice system (on probation or awaiting a court hearing)	$19,000 yearly median family income
Study 10649 - MDFT vs Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
5 Western European countries: Brussels, Belgium; Berlin, Germany, Paris, France; The Hague, The Netherlands; Geneva, Switzerland	2006	Average age: 16 years; Age range: 13-18 years; 9% aged 13-14 years	40% First- or second-generation foreign descent	85% Boys	100% Teens with a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse, determined following DSM-IV guidelines), 84% were dependent on cannabis, 16% qualified for the diagnosis 'cannabis abuse', 40% had an alcohol use disorder, <5% had a substance use disorder for drugs other than cannabis; 34% Arrested once or more for a criminal offence in the past 3 months	35% Having paid employment (regular + temporary jobs)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
5 Western European countries: Brussels, Belgium; Berlin, Germany, Paris, France; The Hague, The Netherlands; Geneva, Switzerland	2006	--	--	--	30% Parents with substance use/mental problems, as stated by the youth	--
Study 10649 - MDFT vs. Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Geneva/Hague sites)
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
The Hague, The Netherlands; Geneva, Switzerland	2006	Average age: 16 years; Age range: 13-18 years	56% Foreign descent	84% Male	100% Youth meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder (dependence or abuse) based on the DSM-IV, 77% have cannabis dependence; 48% Adolescents reported they had committed a property crime in the preceding 90 days, 33% Adolescents reported they had committed a violent crime in the preceding 90 days	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
The Hague, The Netherlands; Geneva, Switzerland	2006	--	--	--	30% Parents with mental health or substance use problems	--
Study 10649 - MDFT vs Treatment as usual: Individual Psychotherapy (Hague site)
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
The Hague, Netherlands	2006	Average age: 17 years; Age range: 13-18 years	72% Dutch or another Western ethnicity	80% Male	100% diagnosed with DSM-IV cannabis abuse or dependence; 38% had conduct disorder (CD) and/or Oppositional deviant disorder (ODD), 29% CD, 17% ODD DSM-IV diagnosis in the past year; 66% had a criminal arrest history (one or multiple arrests) at the start of treatment, 48% had violent offences, 44% had property offences, 21% had vandalism offences, 11% had misdemeanor offences, 4% had drug offences, 4% had attempted manslaughter offences, 0.9% had sexual offences, 0.9% had arson offenses; 40% were ever in prison	--

“--” indicates information not reported in the study.

* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.

Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Studies Reviewed

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 10644

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Ungaro, R. A., & Henderson, C. E. (2004). Early intervention for adolescent substance abuse: Pretreatment to posttreatment outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing Multidimensional Family Therapy and peer group treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/02791072.2004.10399723

Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2009). Multidimensional Family Therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 12-25. doi:10.1037/a0014160

Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Hawes, S. W., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Parenting practices as mediators of treatment effects in an early-intervention trial of Multidimensional Family Therapy. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35(4), 220-226. doi:10.1080/00952990903005890

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10649

Rigter, H., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Grichting, E., Hendriks, V., & Rowe, C. (2010). INCANT: A transnational randomized trial of Multidimensional Family Therapy versus treatment as usual for adolescents with cannabis use disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 10. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-10-28

Rigter, H., Henderson, C. E., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Hendriks, V., . . . Rowe, C. L. (2013). Multidimensional Family Therapy lowers the rate of cannabis dependence in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial in Western European outpatient settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 130(1-3), 85-93. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.013

Schaub, M. P., Henderson, C. E., Pelc, I., Tossmann, P., Phan, O., Hendriks, V., . . . Rigter, H. (2014). Multidimensional Family Therapy decreases the rate of externalising behavioural disorder symptoms in cannabis abusing adolescents: Outcomes of the INCANT trial. BMC Psychiatry, 14. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-14-26

Phan, O., Henderson, C. E., Angelidis, T., Weil, P., van Toorn, M., Rigter, R., . . . Rigter, H. (2011). European youth care sites serve different populations of adolescents with cannabis use disorder Baseline and referral data from the INCANT trial. BMC Psychiatry, 11. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-11-110

van der Pol, T. M., Henderson, C. E., Hendriks, V., Schaub, M. P., & Rigter, H. (2018a). Multidimensional Family Therapy reduces self-reported criminality among adolescents with a cannabis use disorder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1573-1588. doi:10.1177/0306624X16687536

van der Pol, T. M., Hendriks, V., Rigter, H., Cohn, M. D., Doreleijers, T. A. H., van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. R. J. M. (2018b). Multidimensional Family Therapy in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Long-term effects on delinquency in a randomized controlled trial. Child And Adolescent Psychiatry And Mental Health, 12, 44-44. doi:10.1186/s13034-018-0248-x

Lascaux, M., Ionescu, S., & Phan, O. (2016). Effectiveness of formalised therapy for adolescents with cannabis dependence: A randomised trial. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 23(5), 404-409. doi:10.3109/09687637.2016.1153603

Rowe, C., Rigter, H., Henderson, C., Gantner, A., Mos, K., Nielsen, P., & Phan, O. (2013). Implementation fidelity of Multidimensional Family Therapy in an international trial. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.225

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 10636

Dakof, G. A., Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Boustani, M., Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Hawes, S., Linares, C., & Liddle, H. A. (2015). A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000053