Cochrane · systematic review · CD008063
Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction
Schwenker, R, Dietrich, CE, Hirpa, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
24
current version
GRADE rated
21
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 12.5%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 29.2%Low 11 · 45.8%Moderate 3 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyMotivational interviewing compared with no intervention for substance‐use reduction
Population: people with substance use (adults, young adults, adolescents)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Extent of substance use post‐intervention Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 471 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Extent of substance use at short‐term Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 19 studies · 3351 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Extent of substance use at medium‐term Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 16 studies · 3137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Extent of substance use at long‐term Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1525 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Readiness to change (3‐ to 12‐month Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1495 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Retention in treatment (0‐ to 3‐month Motivational interviewing vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 427 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Motivational interviewing compared with treatment as usual for substance‐use reduction
Population: people with substance use (adults, young adults, adolescents)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Extent of substance use post‐intervention Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 976 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at short‐term Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 14 studies · 3066 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at medium‐term Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1624 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at long‐term Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 1449 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Readiness to change (0‐ to 3‐month Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 150 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Retention in treatment(0‐ to 12‐month Motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1295 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Motivational interviewing compared with assessment and feedback for substance‐use reduction
Population: people with substance use (adults, young adults, adolescents)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Extent of substance use post‐intervention Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Extent of substance use at short‐term Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 854 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at medium‐term Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 688 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Extent of substance use at long‐term Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 448 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Readiness to change Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Retention in treatment Motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Motivational interviewing compared with other active intervention for substance‐use reduction
Population: people with substance use (adults, young adults, adolescents)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Extent of substance use post‐intervention Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 338 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at short‐term Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 18 studies · 2795 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Extent of substance use at medium‐term Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 15 studies · 2352 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Extent of substance use at long‐term Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 1908 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Readiness to change (0‐ to 3‐month Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 988 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Retention in treatment (0‐ to 12‐ month Motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 1945 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
motivational interviewing compared to no treatment control group for substance abuse
Population: patients with substance abuse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
amount of substance abuse post intervention motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 202 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse short motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 15 studies · 2327 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse medium motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 2326 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse long motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 363 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Readiness for change motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1495 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention motivational interviewing vs no treatment control group | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 427 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
motivational interviewing compared to treatment as usual for substance abuse
Population: patients with substance abuse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
amount of substance abuse post intervention motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1940 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse short motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 2102 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse medium follwo‐up motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 890 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention motivational interviewing vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1190 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
motivational interviewing compared to assessment and feedback for substance abuse
Population: patients with substance abuse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
amount of substance abuse short motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 986 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse medium motivational interviewing vs assessment and feedback | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 265 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
motivational interviewing compared to other active intervention for substance abuse
Population: patients with substance abuse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
amount of substance abuse post intervention motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 185 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
amount of substance abuse short motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 2137 participants | Moderate |
amount of substance abuse medium motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1586 participants | Moderate |
amount of substance abuse long motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 437 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 447 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Readiness for change motivational interviewing vs other active intervention | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 350 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |