Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24433291›Full record

ReviewAddiction (Abingdon, England)2014

Should brief interventions in primary care address alcohol problems more strongly?

Jim McCambridge, Stephen Rollnick

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Producing co-production: Reflections on the development of a complex intervention.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jim McCambridgeFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stephen Rollnick

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT086516MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief interventions have well-established small effects on alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care, and national large-scale programmes are being implemented in many countries for public health reasons.

methodsThis paper examines data from reviews and draws upon older brief intervention studies and recent developments in the literature on motivational interviewing to consider the capacity of brief interventions to benefit those with problems, including those with severe problems.

resultsEffects on alcohol problems have been shown much less consistently, and evidence cannot be claimed to be strong for any outcomes other than reduced consumption. Combinations of advice and motivational interviewing are a promising target for evaluation in trials, and more detailed studies of the conduct of brief interventions are needed.

conclusionsWe propose that brief interventions in primary care may be more effective if they offer appropriate content in a person-centred manner, addressing patient concerns more directly.

Indexed as

AlcoholismHumansMotivational InterviewingPrimary Health CareAlcoholbrief interventionmotivational interviewingprimary care

Identifiers

PMID24433291
PMCPMC4153955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.