Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24887418›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2014

Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review.

Matthew M Young, Adrienne Stevens, James Galipeau, Tyler Pirie, Chantelle Garritty, Kavita Singh, Fatemeh Yazdi, Mohammed Golfam, Misty Pratt, Lucy Turner and 8 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Matthew M YoungCanadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA), 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7, Canada. myoung@ccsa.ca.
Adrienne Stevens
James Galipeau
Tyler Pirie
Chantelle Garritty
Kavita Singh
Fatemeh Yazdi
Mohammed Golfam
Misty Pratt
Lucy Turner
Amy Porath-Waller
Cheryl Arratoon
Nancy Haley
Karen Leslie
Rhoda Reardon
Beth Sproule
Jeremy Grimshaw
David Moher

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research KSD-115551
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances.

methodsBibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to April 2012) and gray literature sources were searched. We included randomized controlled trials that opportunistically screened adolescents or adults and then provided a one-to-one, verbal BI to those at risk of substance-use harm. Of interest was the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances (for example, drugs prohibited by international law), excluding alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Interventions comprised four or fewer sessions and were compared with no/delayed intervention or provision of information only. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results were synthesized narratively. Evidence was interpreted according to the GRADE framework.

resultsWe identified 8,836 records. Of these, five studies met our inclusion criteria. Two studies compared BI with no BI, and three studies compared BI with information only. Studies varied in characteristics such as substances targeted, screening procedures, and BI administered. Outcomes were mostly reported by a single study, leading to limited or uncertain confidence in effect estimates.

conclusionsInsufficient evidence exists as to whether BIs, as part of SBIRT, are effective or ineffective for reducing the use of, or harms associated with nonmedical use of, psychoactive substances when these interventions are administered to nontreatment-seeking, screen-detected populations. Updating this review with emerging evidence will be important.

trial registrationCRD42012002414.

Indexed as

Psychotropic DrugsAdolescentAdultHumansMass ScreeningReferral and ConsultationSubstance-Related DisordersTreatment OutcomePsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID24887418
PMCPMC4042132

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.