Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28755774›Full record

Trial reportJournal of substance abuse treatment2017

Effectiveness of a computerized motivational intervention on treatment initiation and substance use: Results from a randomized trial.

Jennifer Lerch, Scott T Walters, Liansheng Tang, Faye S Taxman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for female drug-using offenders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer LerchGeorge Mason University, Department of Criminology, Law and Society and Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence!, 4087 University Drive, Ste. 4100, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Electronic address: jlerch@gmu.edu.
Scott T WaltersUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., EAD 709, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA. Electronic address: Scott.Walters@unthsc.edu.
Liansheng TangGeorge Mason University, Department of Statistics, 1710 Nguyen Engineering Building, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Electronic address: ltang1@gmu.edu.
Faye S TaxmanGeorge Mason University, Department of Criminology, Law and Society and Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence!, 4087 University Drive, Ste. 4100, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Electronic address: ftaxman@gmu.edu.

Funding

In-person vs. Computer Interventions to Increase Probation ComplianceR01DA029010 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI TAXMAN, FAYE S, WALTERS, SCOTT T · 2011 to 2016
$3.1M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA029010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As many as 80% of the nearly five million adults under community supervision (i.e., probation, parole) are substance involved; however, treatment utilization is low. Using a multi-site randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of in-person motivational interviewing (MI), a motivational computer intervention (MAPIT), or standard probation intake (SAU) to encourage treatment initiation among 316 substance-involved probationers in Dallas, Texas and Baltimore City, Maryland. Ninety-three percent (n=295) of participants completed the 2-month follow-up and 90% (n=285) completed the 6-month follow-up. At 2-months, individuals in the MAPIT condition were more likely to report treatment initiation compared to the SAU condition (OR=2.40, 95% CI=1.06, 5.47) via intent-to-treat analysis, especially among those completing both sessions (RE=0.50, 95% CI=0.05, 0.95) via instrumental variable analysis. At 6-months, MAPIT approached significance for treatment initiation in both analyses. MI did not achieve significance in any model. We did not find any differential impact on substance use. The success of MAPIT suggests that an integrated health-justice computerized intervention as part of a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) can be used to address public safety and health issues.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorUser-Computer InterfaceAdultFemaleHumansInternetMaleMarylandMotivational InterviewingSubstance-Related DisordersTexasComputerMAPITMotivationProbationSubstance useTreatment initiation

Identifiers

PMID28755774
PMCPMC5564468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.