Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31100713›Full record

Trial reportAddictive behaviors2019

Assessment of an electronic and clinician-delivered brief intervention on cigarette, alcohol and illicit drug use among women in a reproductive healthcare clinic.

Ariadna Forray, Steve Martino, Kathryn Gilstad-Hayden, Trace Kershaw, Steve Ondersma, Todd Olmstead, Kimberly A Yonkers

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addictive behaviors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

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

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
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
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA027194NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen are at highest risk for development of a substance use disorder during their reproductive years. We recently evaluated the efficacy of an electronic screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (e-SBIRT) and a clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT) compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for reducing overall substance use among women recruited from reproductive health clinics. The present study assessed the impact of the SBIRT interventions within three primary substance subgroups: cigarettes, illicit drugs, and alcohol.

methodsThis is a secondary analysis from a 3-group randomized trial comparing e-SBIRT and SBIRT to EUC. For the present study, participants (N = 439) were grouped according to their primary substance: cigarettes, alcohol, or illicit drugs. Differences in days per month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations, modelling linear as well as quadratic effects of time.

resultsCigarettes were the most frequently reported primary substance (n = 251), followed by illicit drugs (n = 137) and alcohol (n = 51). For primary cigarette use the interaction between the linear effect of time and treatment was significant for SBIRT (β (SE) = -0.067 (0.029), p = .020), but not e-SBIRT, suggesting greater reductions in cigarette use over the first 3 months following treatment with SBIRT compared to EUC. However, the significant interaction of SBIRT with time-squared (β (SE) = 0.009 (0.004), p = .049) showed that reductions in cigarette use attenuated over time, such that after month 3, monthly reductions in cigarette use were similar between groups. Results followed a similar pattern for primary illicit drug use among the e-SBIRT group in which the interaction of e-SBIRT treatment with linear time (β (SE) = -0.181 (0.085), p = .033) and quadratic time (β (SE) = 0.028 (0.012), p = .018) were statistically significant suggesting greater reductions in illicit drug use with e-SBIRT versus EUC, which attenuated with time. Neither SBIRT nor e-SBIRT was associated with a significant reduction in days of alcohol use per month, as compared to EUC.

conclusionsReproductive-age women appear to respond differently to electronic- and clinician-delivered interventions, depending on their primary substance. SBIRT reduced use of cigarettes, and e-SBIRT reduced illicit drug use. Although neither intervention reduced primary alcohol use, the sample size was small (n = 51), suggesting a need for further testing in a larger sample.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMass ScreeningReferral and ConsultationAdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcohol-Related DisordersAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCigarette SmokingDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMotivational InterviewingReproductive Health ServicesSmoking ReductionSubstance-Related DisordersBrief interventionMotivational interviewingPregnancyReproductive healthScreeningSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID31100713
PMCPMC6579708
OpenAlexW2943888823

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.