Table 2.

Results as reported by the studies included in quantitative analysis.

Study	Outcome Variables directly related to alcohol consumption	Assessment Scalesa,b(alcohol-related outcome/s only)	FU assessment periods(alcohol-related outcome/s only)	(Narrative) Results as reported in studies(alcohol-related outcome/s only)	Retention in TG and CG	Outcome Variables unrelated to alcohol consumption or non-behavioral outcomes
Assanangkorn-chai et al. (101)	(1) Alcohol consumption in the past 3 months	(1,2) ASSIST-SSIS for alcohol	FU1: 3 months FU2: 6 months (post-intervention)	Sign. reductions in alcohol consumption (1) in both the TG and CG (main effect, but no group x time interaction) Proportions of baseline “moderate-risk” users who had converted to the “low-risk”-category (2) increased sign. over time in both TG and CG (main effect, but no interaction effects)	FU1: 79% (TG), 84% (CG) FU2: 60% (TG), 65% (CG) (P. who did not complete FU1 were not considered for FU2)	Use of other substances in the past 3 months (ASSIST-SSIS)
	(2) Proportions of participants converted from the “moderate-risk” to the “low-risk” category
Kalichman et al. (95)	(1) Drinking in sexual contexts in previous month	Single item assessing no. of times they drank alcohol before sex	FU1: 3 months FU2: 6 months (post-intervention)	P. in the TG reduced their drinking in sexual contexts (1) sign. more than the CG at the 3 months but not at the 6-month follow-up	FU1: 72% (TG), 69% (CG) FU2: 74% (TG), 69% (CG)	Sexual risk and protective behaviors in the previous month (e.g. rate of intercourse occasions protected by condoms) Knowledge about HIV-prevention
L’Engle et al. (102)	(1) Frequency of drinking during the past 30 d	(1–4) One single item each, ordinal or dichotomous response format	FU1: 6 months FU2: 12 months (post-enrollment)	Sign. more P. in the TG than in the CG reported reduced drinking in the last 30 d at FU1 and FU2 for frequency of drinking alcohol (1), overall binge drinking (2), binge drinking with paying clients (3), and binge drinking with nonpaying partners (4) Intervention did not impact STI/HIV incidence, condom use, or sexual violence from nonpaying partners but it did sign. decrease sexual violence from paying clients at both FU time-points	FU1: 93% (TG), 94% (CG) FU2: 94% (TG), 95% (CG)	STI-infection or new HIV-positive test result (laboratory-confirmed) Sexual violence victimization and condom use in the last 30 d (assessed separately for paying clients vs. nonpaying sexual partners)
	(2) Binge drinking (=3 or more drinks on the same occasion)
	(3) Binge drinking before sex during the past 30 d/with paying clients
	(4) Binge drinking before sex during the past 30 d/with nonpaying partners
Mertens et al. (97)	(1) Alcohol consumption in the past 3 months	(1,2) ASSIST-SSIS for alcohol (3) Single item, ‘heavy drinking’ = 3 or more drinks in one occasion (women)/6 or more drinks in one occasion (men)	FU: 3 months (post-intervention)	Reductions in alcohol ASSIST scores (1) were sign. larger in the intervention arm but prevalence of at-risk alcohol use (2) and heavy drinking (3) at follow-up did not differ across arms	FU: 92% (TG), 88% (CG)	Drug use in the past 3 months (cannabis, methaqualone, cocaine, methamphetamines, inhalants, sedatives, hallucinogens, opiates, and ‘other drugs’; ASSIST)
	(2) At-risk use of alcohol
	(3) Heavy drinking
Nadkarni et al. (89)	(1) Remission (AUDIT score of <8)	(1) AUDIT (2–4) TLFB (5) SIP	FU: 3 months (post-enrollment)	CAP (TG) was associated with a sign. higher proportion of abstinence in the past 14 d (3) and remission according to AUDIT 3 months after enrolment (1) compared to the CG No intervention effect on other alcohol-related outcomes (2,4,5) Evidence of a greater intervention effect among those not already trying to change drinking behavior at baseline than among those who had already started to make a change	FU: 87% (TG), 91% (CG)	Serious adverse events (deaths, suicide attempts, unplanned admissions to hospital) Readiness to change Expectations of the usefulness of counseling Economical cost of illness Total days unable to work in the previous month Suicidality Perpetration of intimate partner violence
	(2) Mean daily alcohol consumed in the past 14 d (in grams of ethanol)
	(3) Percentage of days abstinent in the past 14 d
	(4) Percentage of days of heavy drinking (definition n/r) in the past 14 d
	(5) Physical, social, intrapersonal, impulsive, and interpersonal consequences of alcohol
Noknoy et al. (105)	(1) Amount of alcohol consumption during previous week (drinks/drinking day; hazardous drinking defined as: 14 or more drinks per week or 4 or more drinks per day for men and 7 or more drinks per week or 3 drinks per day for women)	(1) Four items assessing average drinking and hazardous drinking (2–6) Items assessing secondary outcome measures (all items where embedded into a standardized health survey questionnaire using open and dichotomous response formats)	FU1: 6 weeks FU2: 3 months FU3: 6 months (post-enrollment)	Self-reported drinks per drinking day (1), frequency of hazardous drinking (1), and of binge drinking sessions (3) were reduced in the TG sign. more than in the CG at FU2 and FU3 (with only little, n.s. attenuation between FU2 and FU3) No consistent evidence of an immediate post-intervention effect at FU1 although self-reported alcohol consumption in both groups fell from baseline to FU3, GGT increased in both groups, raising doubts about the validity of this marker in this sample and/or the validity of the self-reported data in this study	FU1: 85% (TG), 83% (CG) FU2: 93% (TG), 91% (CG) FU3: 95% (TG), 88% (CG)	Serum gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), a biological marker available for evaluation of the severity of current drinking, assessed at baseline and FU3 parallel interviews with collateral informants to assess the honesty and accuracy of the information given by the P. (data not reported)
	(2) Consumption of alcohol during the previous month (drinks/week)
	(3) No. of episodes of binge drinking in the past 7 d
	(4) No. of episodes of being drunk in the previous month
	(5) Frequency of accidents and traffic accidents due to alcohol during the previous 6 months
	(6) Frequency of health care utilization owing to drinking behavior in the previous 6 months
Omeje et al. (87)	(1) Extent to which P. use alcohol and experience AUD symptoms	(1) AUDS (2) AIBS	FU1: directly post-intervention FU2: two weeks (post-intervention)	Sign. more reduction in alcohol use (1) between TG and CG at post-intervention assessment and at 2-week-FU Sign. more reduction in level of alcohol-related irrational beliefs (2) between TG and CG at post-intervention assessment and at 2-week-FU	FU: 100% (TG), 100% (CG), only P. who attended all group sessions were included into analyses
	(2) Presence of alcohol-related irrational beliefs
Pal et al. (100)	(1) Days used alcohol in last 30 d	(1,2, 3) ASI (semi-structured-interview)	FU1: 1 month FU2: 3 months (post-enrollment)	Sign. decrease in alcohol use in the past 30 d (1) as well as the composite score for potential problem areas in substance abusing patients (3) for the group as a whole (main effect) from baseline to FU1 and baseline to FU2 (but not from FU1 to FU2): Decrease in alcohol use in the past 30 d (1) sign. higher for P. in the TG compared to P. in the CG at FU1 and FU2 (+ sign. decrease between FU1 and FU2 in the TG) No change in the problems due to alcohol use (2)	FU1: 97% (TG and CG combined) FU2: 96% (TG and CG combined)	Quality of life in 4 domains: physical, psychological, social, and environmental (WHOQOL) motivation of P. categorizing them to the stage of change regarding pre-contemplation, contemplation, and action stage (RCQ)
	(2) Experienced problems (no. of days; potential problems: medical status, employment and support, drug use, alcohol use, legal status, family/social status, and psychiatric status)
	(3) Composite measure derived from alcohol use, alcohol use to intoxication, money spent, alcohol problems, being bothered by alcohol problems and the need for treatment in the last 30 d
Papas et al. (106)	(1) Percent drinking days in the past 30 d (2) mean drinks per drinking day in the past 30 d (in grams of ethanol)	(1,2) TLFB	Post-intervention (6 weeks) FU1: 30 d FU2: 60 d FU3: 90 d (post-intervention) +weekly assessments during treatment phase	CBT was sign. more effective than TAU in reducing reported alcohol use (1,2) at all three follow-up points (with highest effect after 30 d) sign. more CBT than control participants reported abstinence at all follow-ups (e.g. FU3: 69% in TG and 38% in CG)	FU1: 90% (TG), 97% (CG) FU2: 90% (TG), 97% (CG) FU3: 86% (TG), 97% (CG)	withdrawal symptoms (CIWA-Ar)
Peltzer et al. (93)	(1) Change in alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months	(1,2) AUDIT (modified to a 3-months-reference period)	FU1: 3 months FU2: 6 months (post-enrollment)	Reductions in AUDIT total score (1) as well as in the number of positively screened P. (2) over time (=more non-drinkers) in both, TG and CG, (sign. main effect, but no intervention effect)	FU1: 39% (TG), 54% (CG) FU2: 59% (TG), 79% (CG)	Successful TB response, classified by WHO as cured or treatment completed
	(2) No. of non-drinkers in the past month (FU2 only)
Pengpid et al. (103)	(1) Alcohol-related symptoms in the past 6 months	(1) AUDIT (modified to a 6-months-reference period) (2) AUDIT-3 (third item only)	FU1: 6 months FU2: 12 months (post-intervention)	Alcohol consumption (1,2) declined sign. in both TG and CG No intervention effect on total AUDIT score (1) or heavy episodic drinking (2)	FU1: 66% (TG), 56% (CG) FU2: 73% (TG), 71% (CG)
	(2) Frequency of heavy episodic drinking in the past 6 months
Pengpid et al. (104)	(1) Alcohol consumption in the past 3 months	(1) ASSIST-SSIS for alcohol (2) TLFB	FU1: 3 months FU2: 6 months (post-intervention)	From baseline to FU1 and FU2 alcohol consumption declined sign. in all groups: the TG (conjoint/polydrug-intervention) and both CGs (single-drug-interventions for alcohol and tobacco) No interaction-effects for alcohol-specific outcomes	FU1: 75% (TG), 74% (CG1), 74% (CG2) FU2: 73% (TG), 73% (CG1), 72% (CG2)	Tabacco consumption in the past 3 months (ASSIST) Tabacco use in the past week (TLFB)
	(2) Quantity of drinking in the past week (in standard drinks but ethanol content n/r)
Segatto et al. (88)	(1) Pattern of alcohol consumption over the previous 3 months	(1) ACQ (2) RAPI	FU: 3 months (post-enrollment)	Sign. reductions in alcohol abuse (1) and related problems (2) were found in both groups over time (main effect) but no difference between groups was observed	FU: 85% (TG), 85% (CG)	Perception of future risks associated with excessive alcohol use considering that the pattern of alcohol abuse does not change within 3 months (APRA) Motivational stage to change behavior/readiness to change (RCQ)
	(2) Drinking behavior and negative consequences associated with alcohol abuse in the previous 3 months
Sheikh et al. (90)	(1) No. of days of abstinence following discharge	(1) One open-response item (2) AUDIT-C (first three items only)	FU: 8 weeks (post-intervention)	Sign. longer time to first relapse (1) in the TG (M=51 d) compared to the CG (M=10 d) Amount and frequency of alcohol consumption (2) was sign. lower in the TG compared to the CG	FU: 100% (TG), 100% (CG); P. who did not attend FU-appointments were contacted to complete FU over the phone (13%)	“Additional information was obtained from relatives on the participant’s drinking habits” (not reported)
	(2) Amount and frequency of drinking
Sorsdahl et al. (98)	(1) Alcohol consumption in the past 3 months	(1) ASSIST-SSIS for alcohol	FU: 3 months (post-enrollment for TG1 and CG; post-intervention for TG2)	ASSIST scores (1) sign. decreased from baseline to FU in all three arms Alcohol consumption (1) at FU was sign. lower in the TG2 than in the TG1 and CG (interaction effect) but no difference in alcohol consumption between CG and TG1	FU: 62% (TG1), 42% (TG2), 60% (CG)	Depression (CES-D) Frequency of substance-related injury, physical and verbal violence, and police interaction
Wandera et al. (99)	(1) Quantity of drinking in the past 30 d (grams of ethanol)	(1,4,5) TLFB (2) AUDIT-C (modified to a 3-months-reference period) (3) AUDIT (modified to a 3-months-reference period)	FU1: 3 months FU2: 6 months (post-enrollment)	Sign. overall reduction of alcohol consumption (2) at FU1 and FU2 for both groups but no intervention effect for MI counseling (TG) over positive prevention counseling (CG) MI appeared effective among women only regarding alcohol consumption (2)	FU1: 87% (TG), 89% (CG) FU2: 98% (TG), 96% (CG)	Depression (CESD-10) HIV clinical data
	(2) Alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months
	(3) Proportion of P. with AUDIT score ≥8 points
	(4) Median number of drinking days in the past one month
	(5) Average number of alcohol standard drinks consumed on a typical drinking day
Witte et al. (91)	(1) Alcohol-related symptoms in the past year	(1) AUDIT	FU1: 2 weeks, but data for (1) not collected at FU1 FU2: 3 months FU3: 6 months (post-intervention)	All three conditions sign. reduced harmful alcohol use(1) at FU2 and FU3. No differences in effects were observed between conditions.	FU1: no outcomes of interest assessed FU2: 67% (TG1), 79% (TG2), 73% (CG) FU3: 67% (TG1), 81% (TG2), 85% (CG)	Sexual risk behavior: no. of unprotected vaginal sexual acts with paying clients in the past 90 d

^aunstandardized/self-developed scales in italics.

^breference periods (unless otherwise stated): AUDIT=12 months; ASSIST=3 months/ever.

ACQ, Alcohol Consumption Questionnaire; AIBS, Alcohol-related Irrational Belief Scale; APRA, Alcohol Perception of Risk Assessment; ASI, Addiction Severity Index; ASSIST-SSIS, ASSIST-Specific Substance Involvement Scores; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorder Idetification Test; AUDS, Alcohol Use Disorder Scale; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; CESD-10, 10-item Center for Epidemiology Studies on Depression Scale; CG, control group; CIWA-Ar, Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale; FU, follow-up; no., number; n.s., non-significant; n/r, not reported; P., participant(s); RAPI, Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index; RCQ, Readiness to Change Questionnaire; sign., significant/significantly; SIP, Short Inventory of Problems; STI, Sexually Transmitted Infection; TG, treatment group; TLFB, Timeline Followback; WHOQOL, WHO Quality of Life.