Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176041›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Understanding the unique goals of complex support clients accessing alcohol and other drug treatment.

Emily Deans, Wing See Yuen, George Economidis, Anthony Shakeshaft, Sara Farnbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors.

Emily DeansNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. e.deans@unsw.edu.au.
Wing See YuenNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia.
George EconomidisNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia.
Anthony ShakeshaftPoche Centre for Indigenous Health, University of Queensland, Toowong, 4066, Australia.
Sara FarnbachNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundActively involving clients of Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) services in selecting their own treatment goals may help to align clients' and service providers' expectations of treatment and improve engagement with services. This study explored the type and frequency of client-selected treatment goals; self-reported progress towards their goals; client and clinician views of their progress, and the acceptability of selecting and tracking goals in a non-residential AOD treatment provider in New South Wales, Australia.

methodsA mixed method study was conducted. Clients selected their goals during AOD treatment then self-rated their progress towards goals using the validated 11-point goal-based outcome (GBO) rating tool. Qualitative interviews were conducted with clients and clinicians. Mean GBO ratings were reported for each timepoint. Goals were thematically analysed to identify type, then descriptively analysed to identify frequency. Interviews were thematically analysed by one researcher and reviewed by a second.

resultsAmong the 22 clients who completed the GBO at least once, the median number of self-identified goals was 3. The most common goals included: (1) managing mental health and (2) developing strategies to prevent relapse and manage AOD cravings. Most participants reported improvements in their selected goals; there were no participants who reported lower GBO scores at the second timepoint compared to the first. Qualitative themes demonstrate that while the GBO approach provided clarity for clients, was acceptable to clients and clinicians, and considered client expectations of treatment, the approach was difficult for those with limited literacy and reflexive thinking. Those experiencing lapse or relapse reported the linear GBO rating approach was potentially demotivating.

conclusionsFindings demonstrate that a goals-based outcome approach can promote shared decision-making between client and clinicians about treatment goals which are valued by clients. Service providers should be aware of potential complexity of recalling selected goals and completing ratings particularly among clients with co-occurring mental illness and memory impairment. Goals that are time-specific, realistic and relevant should be prioritised to minimise risks of demotivation arising from non-linear progress towards goals.

Indexed as

AlcoholismGoalsSubstance-Related DisordersAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesQualitative ResearchAlcohol and other drugsComplex support needsGoals-based outcomesMixed methodsPsychoeducation

Identifiers

PMID40176041
PMCPMC11966852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.