Historique
Article de Périodique
Specialty substance use disorder services following brief alcohol intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2015)
Auteur(s) :
GLASS, J. E. ;
HAMILTON, A. M. ;
POWELL, B. J. ;
PERRON, B. E. ;
BROWN, R. T. ;
ILGEN, M. A.
Année
2015
Page(s) :
1404-1415
Sous-type de document :
Méta-analyse / Meta-analysis
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
79
Domaine :
Alcool / Alcohol
Thésaurus mots-clés
ETUDE RANDOMISEE
;
ALCOOL
;
INTERVENTION BREVE
;
ORIENTATION
;
PRISE EN CHARGE
;
TRAITEMENT
;
EVALUATION
;
DISPOSITIF DE SOIN
;
EFFICACITE
Autres mots-clés
Note générale :
Commentaries:
- 'SBIRT' is the answer? Probably not. Saitz R., p. 1416-1417.
- Bridging the gap between medical settings and specialty addiction treatment. Cucciare M.A., Timko C., p. 1417-1419.
- Challenges ahead in developing and testing referral to treatment interventions. Glass J.E., p. 1419-1420.
- Is there really no evidence of the efficacy of brief alcohol interventions for increasing subsequent utilization of alcohol-related services? Commentary on the paper by Glass et al. (2015). Simioni N., Rolland B., Cottencin O. Addiction, 2016; 111(1): p. 180-181.
- Response: Revisiting our review of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): meta-analytical results still point to no efficacy in increasing the use of substance use disorder services. Glass J.E., Hamilton A.M., Powell B.J., Perron B.E., Brown R.T., Ilgen M.A. Addiction, 2016; 111(1): p. 181-183.
- 'SBIRT' is the answer? Probably not. Saitz R., p. 1416-1417.
- Bridging the gap between medical settings and specialty addiction treatment. Cucciare M.A., Timko C., p. 1417-1419.
- Challenges ahead in developing and testing referral to treatment interventions. Glass J.E., p. 1419-1420.
- Is there really no evidence of the efficacy of brief alcohol interventions for increasing subsequent utilization of alcohol-related services? Commentary on the paper by Glass et al. (2015). Simioni N., Rolland B., Cottencin O. Addiction, 2016; 111(1): p. 180-181.
- Response: Revisiting our review of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): meta-analytical results still point to no efficacy in increasing the use of substance use disorder services. Glass J.E., Hamilton A.M., Powell B.J., Perron B.E., Brown R.T., Ilgen M.A. Addiction, 2016; 111(1): p. 181-183.
Résumé :
Background and aims: Brief alcohol interventions in medical settings are efficacious in improving self-reported alcohol consumption among those with low-severity alcohol problems. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment initiatives presume that brief interventions are efficacious in linking patients to higher levels of care, but pertinent evidence has not been evaluated. We estimated main and subgroup effects of brief alcohol interventions, regardless of their inclusion of a referral-specific component, in increasing the utilization of alcohol-related care.
Methods: A systematic review of English language papers published in electronic databases to 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of brief alcohol interventions in general health-care settings with adult and adolescent samples. We excluded studies that lacked alcohol services utilization data. Extractions of study characteristics and outcomes were standardized and conducted independently. The primary outcome was post-treatment alcohol services utilization assessed by self-report or administrative data, which we compared across intervention and control groups.
Results: Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria and nine were meta-analyzed (n = 993 and n = 937 intervention and control group participants, respectively). In our main analyses the pooled risk ratio (RR) was = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.28. Five studies compared referral-specific interventions with a control condition without such interventions (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.81-1.43). Other subgroup analyses of studies with common characteristics (e.g. age, setting, severity, risk of bias) yielded non-statistically significant results.
Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence that brief alcohol interventions have any efficacy for increasing the receipt of alcohol-related services.
Methods: A systematic review of English language papers published in electronic databases to 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of brief alcohol interventions in general health-care settings with adult and adolescent samples. We excluded studies that lacked alcohol services utilization data. Extractions of study characteristics and outcomes were standardized and conducted independently. The primary outcome was post-treatment alcohol services utilization assessed by self-report or administrative data, which we compared across intervention and control groups.
Results: Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria and nine were meta-analyzed (n = 993 and n = 937 intervention and control group participants, respectively). In our main analyses the pooled risk ratio (RR) was = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.28. Five studies compared referral-specific interventions with a control condition without such interventions (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.81-1.43). Other subgroup analyses of studies with common characteristics (e.g. age, setting, severity, risk of bias) yielded non-statistically significant results.
Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence that brief alcohol interventions have any efficacy for increasing the receipt of alcohol-related services.
Affiliation :
School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Cote :
Abonnement