Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29247636›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018

A randomized controlled trial of screening and brief interventions for substance misuse in reproductive health.

Steve Martino, Steven J Ondersma, Ariadna Forray, Todd A Olmstead, Kathryn Gilstad-Hayden, Heather B Howell, Trace Kershaw, Kimberly A Yonkers

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Testing the efficacy of motivational strategies, empathic reflections, and lifelike features in a computerized intervention for alcohol use: A factorial trial.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2019
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steve MartinoDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT. Electronic address: steve.martino@yale.edu.
Steven J OndersmaDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences & Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute, Detroit, MI.
Ariadna ForrayDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Todd A OlmsteadLyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Kathryn Gilstad-HaydenDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Heather B HowellDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Trace KershawDivision of Chronic Disease, Yale University School of Epidemiology and Public Health, New Haven, CT.
Kimberly A YonkersDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Division of Chronic Disease, Yale University School of Epidemiology and Public Health, New Haven, CT.
Yale University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

Three Strategies for Implementing Motivational Interviewing on Medical InpatientR01DA034243 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MARTINO, STEVE, YONKERS, KIMBERLY A · 2012 to 2016
$3.7M
Project START: Screening to Augment Referral to TreatmentR01DA027194 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MARTINO, STEVE, YONKERS, KIMBERLY A · 2010 to 2014
$3.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA027194NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment may reduce substance misuse but has received minimal study among women who are treated in reproductive health settings.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" that is delivered either electronically or by clinician are more effective than enhanced usual care in decreasing days of primary substance use. STUDY

designWomen from 2 reproductive centers who smoked cigarettes or misused alcohol, illicit drugs, or prescription medication were allocated randomly to "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" delivered electronically or by clinician or to enhanced usual care. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after a baseline has been established. Coprimary outcomes were days/months of primary substance use and postintervention treatment use. A sample size of 660 women was planned; randomization was stratified by primary substance use and pregnancy status. "Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" groups were compared with enhanced usual care groups with the use of generalized estimation equations, and effect sizes were calculated with the use of Cohen's d.

resultsBetween September 2011 and January 2015, women were assigned randomly to a group: 143 women (16.8% pregnant) in the electronic-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, 145 women (18.6% pregnant) in the clinician-delivered "screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" group, and 151 women (19.2% pregnant) in the enhanced usual care group; the retention was >84%. Based on the generalized estimating equations model, predicted mean days per month of use at baseline for primary substance were 23.9 days (95% confidence interval, 22.4-25.5) for the electronic-delivered group, 22.8 days (95% confidence interval, 21.4-24.3) for the clinician-delivered group, and 23.5 days (95% confidence interval, 22.2, 24.9) for enhanced usual care, which respectively declined to 20.5 days (95% confidence interval, 19.0-22.2), 19.8 days (95% confidence interval,18.5-21.3), and 21.9 days (95% confidence interval, 20.7-23.1) at 1 month; 16.9 days (95% confidence interval, 15.0-19.0), 16.6 days (95% confidence interval, 14.8-18.6), and 19.5 days (95% confidence interval, 18.1-21.1) at 3 months; and 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.3-18.7), 16.3 days (95% confidence interval, 14.4-18.5), and 17.9 days (95% confidence interval, 16.1-19.9) at 6 months. Estimated declines were greater in the electronic-delivered group (β [standard error]=-0.090[0.034]; P=.008; Cohen's d, 0.19 at 1 month, 0.30 at 3 months, and 0.17 at 6 months) and the clinician-delivered group (β [standard error]=-0.078[0.037]; P=.038; Cohen's d, 0.17 at 1 month, 0.22 at 3 months, and 0.06 at 6 months) compared with enhanced usual care. Treatment use did not differ between groups.

conclusion"Screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment" significantly decreased days of primary substance use among women in reproductive healthcare centers; neither resulted in more treatment use than enhanced usual care.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationReproductive Health ServicesAdultAlcohol-Related DisordersCigarette SmokingFemaleHarm ReductionHumansIllicit DrugsMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsMotivational InterviewingPregnancyPrescription Drug MisuseSubstance-Related DisordersTobacco Use DisorderIllicit Drugsbrief interventionmotivational interviewingprimary carereproductive healthscreeningsubstance usetreatment use

Identifiers

PMID29247636
PMCPMC6896206
OpenAlexW2772956687

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.