Dale W Steele1,2,3,4, Sara J Becker5,6, Kristin J Danko7,2, Ethan M Balk7,2, Gaelen P Adam7,2, Ian J Saldanha7,2, Thomas A Trikalinos7,2. 1. Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health and dale_steele@brown.edu. 2. Departments of Health Services, Policy, and Practice and. 3. Departments of Emergency Medicine. 4. Pediatrics, and. 5. Behavioral and Social Sciences, School of Public Health and. 6. Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 7. Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health and.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Adolescents with problematic substance use (SU) are at risk for far-reaching adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence regarding the effects of brief behavioral interventions for adolescents (12-20 years) with problematic SU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted literature searches in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo through October 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We screened 33 272 records and citations for interventions in adolescents with at least problematic SU, retrieved 1831 articles, and selected 22 randomized controlled trials of brief interventions meeting eligibility criteria for meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. We categorized brief interventions into components, including motivational interviewing (MI), psychoeducation, and treatment as usual. Outcomes included SU (abstinence, days used per month) for alcohol and cannabis, and substance-related problem scales. Strength of evidence (SoE) was assessed. RESULTS: Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted by using random effects models. Compared to treatment as usual, the use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days per month (95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.6 to 0.02; low SoE), alcohol use days by 1.1 days per month (95% CrI -2.2 to -0.3; moderate SoE), and overall substance-related problems by a standardized net mean difference of 0.5 (95% CrI -1.0 to 0; low SoE). The use of MI did not reduce cannabis use days, with a net mean difference of -0.05 days per month (95% CrI: -0.26 to 0.14; moderate SoE). LIMITATIONS: There was lack of consistently reported outcomes and limited available comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use, alcohol use days, and SU-related problems in adolescents but does not reduce cannabis use days.
CONTEXT: Adolescents with problematic substance use (SU) are at risk for far-reaching adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence regarding the effects of brief behavioral interventions for adolescents (12-20 years) with problematic SU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted literature searches in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo through October 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We screened 33 272 records and citations for interventions in adolescents with at least problematic SU, retrieved 1831 articles, and selected 22 randomized controlled trials of brief interventions meeting eligibility criteria for meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. We categorized brief interventions into components, including motivational interviewing (MI), psychoeducation, and treatment as usual. Outcomes included SU (abstinence, days used per month) for alcohol and cannabis, and substance-related problem scales. Strength of evidence (SoE) was assessed. RESULTS: Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted by using random effects models. Compared to treatment as usual, the use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days per month (95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.6 to 0.02; low SoE), alcohol use days by 1.1 days per month (95% CrI -2.2 to -0.3; moderate SoE), and overall substance-related problems by a standardized net mean difference of 0.5 (95% CrI -1.0 to 0; low SoE). The use of MI did not reduce cannabis use days, with a net mean difference of -0.05 days per month (95% CrI: -0.26 to 0.14; moderate SoE). LIMITATIONS: There was lack of consistently reported outcomes and limited available comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use, alcohol use days, and SU-related problems in adolescents but does not reduce cannabis use days.
Authors: Kelli Scott; Sara J Becker; Sarah A Helseth; Ian J Saldanha; Ethan M Balk; Gaelen P Adam; Kristin J Konnyu; Dale W Steele Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Sara J Becker; Kelli Scott; Sarah A Helseth; Kristin J Danko; Ethan M Balk; Ian J Saldanha; Gaelen P Adam; Dale W Steele Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-05-29
Authors: Sara J Becker; Sarah A Helseth; Tim Janssen; Lourah M Kelly; Katherine I Escobar; Timothy Souza; Thomas Wright; Anthony Spirito Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Sarah A Helseth; John Guigayoma; Dayna Price; Anthony Spirito; Melissa A Clark; Nancy P Barnett; Sara J Becker Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-03-11