ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2026
Brief Addiction Monitor-Taiwan version as a simple tool for the measurement-based care of people who use drugs in the era of harm reduction: predictive validity in prospective follow-ups of patients nationwide.
Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) is a simple tool for the periodic assessment of substance use disorders, but whether it can be applied in non-US settings is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of a translated version of the BAM, named the BAM-Taiwan (BAM-T), and examine whether the baseline BAM-T score was associated with being lost to follow-up or with changes in the score at 3 months and 6 months, respectively.
methodsA total of 2336 participants recruited from people who use drugs enrolled in treatment programs nationwide were followed up at 3 months and 6 months. Within this cohort, intraclass correlation reliability (ICCR) of interview responses was used to assess interrater reliability in 127 participants and test-retest reliability in 102 participants. To evaluate predictive validity, we examined associations between baseline BAM-T total score and follow-up outcomes, including loss to follow-up and subsequent BAM-T severity, using multivariable regression models. To account for informative loss to follow-up, stabilized inverse probability-weighted (IPW) linear regression models were applied.
resultsThe BAM-T total score demonstrated excellent interrater (ICCR = 0.855) and 1-week test-retest reliability (ICCR = 0.789). Higher baseline BAM-T total score was associated with increased odds of loss to follow-up and with higher BAM-T total scores at both 3-month and 6-month follow-up. These associations remained robust in IPW-weighted analyses accounting for informative loss to follow-up. Each 1-SD increase in baseline BAM-T total score (7.9 points) was associated with a 5.21-point (robust SE = 0.18) higher BAM-T total score at 3 months (95% CI, 4.85-5.57; p < 0.0001) and a 4.95-point (robust SE = 0.21) higher score at 6 months (95% CI, 4.54-5.36; p < 0.0001) after adjustment for key sociodemographic and clinical covariates.
conclusionsOur results provide empirical support for the utility of BAM-T as a simple tool for the measurement-based care of patients who use various types of drugs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.