ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Success Rates of Monitoring for Healthcare Professionals with a Substance Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global perspective on child and adolescent oral health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oral impacts on daily performance.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing the effectiveness of in-person vs. virtual intensive group interventions for healthcare professionals with substance use disorders.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2026Article
- Are "Alternative to Discipline" Programs for Nurses With Alcohol and Other Drug Challenges Relevant to Global Contexts? A Scoping Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Substance use disorder and alcohol consumption patterns among Dutch physicians: a nationwide register-based study.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2023Article
- Navigating Minority and Gender Discrimination, Substance Use Disorder, Financial Distress, and Workplace Politics: Lessons for Work-Life Wellness in Academic Medicine: Part 2 of 3.Kansas journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Psychiatric Issues Among Health Professionals.The Medical clinics of North America · 2023Review
- Substance use disorder (SUD) among anesthesiologists.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the past decades, monitoring programs have been developed for healthcare professionals with substance use disorders. We aimed to explore estimates of abstinence and work retention rates after participation in such monitoring programs. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Twenty-nine observational studies reporting on success rates (abstinence and work retention) of monitoring for healthcare professionals with a substance use disorder were included in the meta-analysis. Quality-effects models calculated pooled success rates and corresponding 95%-Confidence Intervals (CI), with subgroup analyses on monitoring elements and patient characteristics. Pooled success rates were 72% for abstinence (95%-CI = 63-80%) and 77% for work retention (95%-CI = 61-90%). Heterogeneity across studies was partly explained by the starting moment of monitoring, showing higher abstinence rates for studies that started monitoring after treatment completion (79%; 95%-CI = 72-85%) compared to studies that started monitoring with treatment initiation (61%; 95%-CI = 50-72%). About three-quarters of healthcare professionals with substance use disorders participating in monitoring programs are abstinent during follow-up and working at the end of the follow-up period. Due to selection and publication bias, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of monitoring for healthcare professionals with SUD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.