Cochrane · systematic review · CD009269
Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Klimas, J, Fairgrieve, C, Tobin, H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · 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
26
current version
GRADE rated
26
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 15.4%Low 17 · 65.4%Moderate 5 · 19.2%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 onlyCognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) compared to twelve‐step facilitation (TSF) programme to reduce alcohol consumption in people who use illicit drugs (PWID)
Population: concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum number of weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) vs twelve‐step facilitation (TSF) programme to reduce alcohol consumption | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants achieving 3 or more weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) vs twelve‐step facilitation (TSF) programme to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 1.96 [0.43, 8.94] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Alcohol abstinence Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) vs twelve‐step facilitation (TSF) programme to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 2.38 [0.1, 55.06] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention ‐ end of treatment Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBCST) vs twelve‐step facilitation (TSF) programme to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 0.89 [0.62, 1.29] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Brief intervention (BI) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID
Population: concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) scores Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 170 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of drinks per week Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of drinks per week Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Decreased alcohol use Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | RR 1.13 [0.67, 1.93] | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Decreased alcohol use Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | RR 1.09 [0.62, 1.92] | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | RR 0.94 [0.78, 1.13] | 3 studies · 190 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Motivational interviewing (MI) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) or educational intervention only to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID
Population: concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) scores Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 141 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 225 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | RR 1.01 [0.77, 1.31] | 1 study · 256 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | RR 0.93 [0.57, 1.5] | 1 study · 256 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Retention ‐ end of treatment Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | RR 0.96 [0.87, 1.06] | 1 study · 256 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Retention Motivational interviewing (MI) vs treatment | RR 0.93 [0.6, 1.43] | 2 studies · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) compared to assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID
Population: concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of days with alcohol use Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) vs assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
25% reduction of drinking days in the past 30 days Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) vs assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 1.23 [0.96, 1.57] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
50% reduction of drinking days in the past 30 days Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) vs assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 1.27 [0.96, 1.68] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
or more drinking days' reduction in the past 30 days Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) vs assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 1.67 [1.08, 2.6] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Retention ‐ end of treatment Brief motivational interviewing (BMI) vs assessment‐only to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 0.98 [0.94, 1.02] | 1 study · 190 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Motivational interviewing intensive (MII) compared to motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID
Population: concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Addiction Severity Index alcohol score Motivational interviewing intensive (MII) vs motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce alcohol consumption | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 163 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Addiction Severity Index alcohol score Motivational interviewing intensive (MII) vs motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce alcohol consumption | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 163 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Addiction Severity Index alcohol score Motivational interviewing intensive (MII) vs motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce alcohol consumption | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 163 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Retention ‐ end of treatment Motivational interviewing intensive (MII) vs motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce alcohol consumption | RR 17.63 [1.03, 300.48] | 1 study · 163 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBT) versus 12‐step facilitation (TSF) for alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Population: participants with alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum number of weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment Substance abuse calendar and breathalyser. Scale from: 0 to 12. Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBT) vs 12‐step facilitation (TSF) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Maximum number of weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment Substance abuse calendar and urinalysis. Scale from: 0 to 12. Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBT) vs 12‐step facilitation (TSF) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of people achieving 3 or more weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment Substance abuse calendar and breathalyser Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBT) vs 12‐step facilitation (TSF) | RR 1.96 [0.43, 8.94] | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alcohol abstinence Substance abuse calendar and breathalyser Cognitive‐behavioural coping skills training (CBT) vs 12‐step facilitation (TSF) | RR 2.38 [0.1, 55.06] | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Brief intervention (BI) versus treatment as usual for alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Population: participants with alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of standard drinks per week unreported Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of standard drinks per week unreported Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Decreased alcohol use 1st question from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | RR 1.13 [0.67, 1.93] | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Decreased alcohol use 1st question from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? Brief intervention (BI) vs treatment | RR 1.34 [0.69, 2.58] | 1 study · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Motivational interviewing (group) (MI‐G) versus hepatitis health promotion (HHP) for alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Population: participants with alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of standard drinks per day counts Motivational interviewing (group) (MI‐G) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 147 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Over 50% less standard drinks per day Timeline follow back Motivational interviewing (group) (MI‐G) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | RR 1.1 [0.82, 1.48] | 1 study · 166 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alcohol abstinence Timeline follow back Motivational interviewing (group) (MI‐G) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | RR 0.88 [0.49, 1.58] | 1 study · 166 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Motivational interviewing (single) (MI‐S) versus hepatitis health promotion (HHP) for alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Population: participants with alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of standard drinks consumed per day counts Motivational interviewing (single) (MI‐S) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 155 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Over 50% less standard drinks per day Timeline follow back Motivational interviewing (single) (MI‐S) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | RR 0.92 [0.68, 1.26] | 1 study · 177 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Alcohol abstinence Timeline follow back Motivational interviewing (single) (MI‐S) vs hepatitis health promotion (HHP) | RR 0.97 [0.56, 1.67] | 1 study · 177 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment‐only for alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
Population: participants with alcohol use in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of days with alcohol use at 6 months Timeline follow back. Scale from: 0 to 31. Brief motivational intervention (BMI) vs assessment‐only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
25% reduction of drinking days in the past 30 days Timeline follow back Brief motivational intervention (BMI) vs assessment‐only | RR 1.23 [0.96, 1.57] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
50% reduction of drinking days in the past 30 days Timeline follow back Brief motivational intervention (BMI) vs assessment‐only | RR 1.27 [0.96, 1.68] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Seven or more drinking days' reduction in the past 30 days Timeline follow back Brief motivational intervention (BMI) vs assessment‐only | RR 1.67 [1.08, 2.6] | 1 study · 187 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |