SynthesisBMC psychiatry2026
Risk and protective factors for relapse after residential substance use treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelapse after residential treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) remains common, yet no prior systematic review and meta-analysis has comprehensively synthesized the risk and protective factors associated with post-discharge relapse. We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with relapse after residential SUD treatment, while also examining whether outcomes differed by primary substance and by treatment type (mandatory versus voluntary).
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251252324). PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and grey literature were searched from inception to March 31, 2026. Primary studies of residential, inpatient, or therapeutic community SUD treatment reporting relapse-related outcomes were included. Random-effects inverse-variance models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool and RoB-1 for observational studies.
resultsSixty-one studies involving 18,693 participants were included: 60 cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. Twenty-seven studies were rated Good and 34 Fair. Interventions modestly increased abstinence (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25). Relapsed participants had higher depression scores (SMD, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.66), whereas psychological distress was lower among abstinent participants, and self-efficacy was higher among abstinent participants after harmonizing the direction of effects. Longer treatment duration was associated with better outcomes, although heterogeneity was extreme and the pooled magnitude should be interpreted cautiously. Peer-support-specific analysis showed improved abstinence, whereas broader continuing-care or intervention analyses produced a separate estimate. Alcohol was the dominant substance category, followed by polysubstance, opioids/heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine use. Descriptive evidence suggested lower 6- to 12-month abstinence in heroin-focused than alcohol-focused cohorts, but no study compared substances within one framework. Two studies examined correctional or prison-based mandatory settings, and none compared mandatory with voluntary treatment.
conclusionsRelapse after residential SUD treatment was associated with greater depressive burden and lower self-efficacy, whereas peer support, longer treatment duration, and adherence-related interventions were associated with better outcomes. Evidence was insufficient to draw firm conclusions regarding substance-specific differences or mandatory versus voluntary treatment effects, underscoring the need for better-designed comparative studies that standardize relapse definitions, classify treatment voluntariness, and report outcomes by primary substance category. 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.