Alegria 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Substance: various substances Baseline characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Number randomized: 172 Control 1 Number randomized: 169 Overall Number randomized: 341 Included criteria: elevated mental health concerns and substance misuse, 18 to 70 years old, self‐identified as Latino, not receiving or about to receive specialty behavioral health services in the previous 3 month or upcoming month Excluded criteria: lacked capacity to consent, reported imminent suicidal ideation Number missing: 83 Reason missing: not reported Baseline differences: no differences Age: 33.9 Percent female: 51% Race/Ethnicity: 100% Latin
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Group name: Integrated Intervention for Dual Problems and Early Action Theory: Teasdale et al. (2000); Shonin & Van Gordon (2016) Duration: 3 to 6 months Timing: 10 to 12 sessions, 45 to 75 minutes each Delivery: individual Providers: trained clinicians with MS degree or higher Co‐intervention: usual care Integrity: yes, audio recorded sessions Compliance: not reported Control 1 Group name: Enhanced treatment as usual Theory: not reported Duration: 6 months Timing: 5 telephone calls Delivery: individual Providers: care manager Co‐intervention: usual care Integrity: not reported Compliance: not reported
Outcomes	Treatment acceptability (attrition) Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment
Identification	Sponsorship source: n/a Country: USA and Spain Setting: not residential Authors name: Alegria Institution: Harvard Medical School Email: malegria@mgh.harvard.edu Address: Department of Medicine and Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts COI: none Diagnosis tool: elevated symptoms on AC‐OK screener Diagnosis type: informal Funding: this study was funded in part by grant R01DA034952 from NIDA of the National Institutes of Health; grant R01MH100155‐01S1 from NIMH; and grants ISCII PI13/02200 and PI16/01852 from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, grant 20151073 from Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional de Drogas, and grant LSRG‐1‐ 005‐16 from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (Dr Baca‐García). Journal: JAMA Network Open Publication type: published report Secondary publications: yes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Stratified block‐randomization
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Blinded project coordinator randomized after baseline
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Research assistant blinded but not participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Treatment acceptability (attrition)	Low risk	Objective measure
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Similar attrition rates, reasons not given but ITT analyses used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol available and reported primary outcome
Other bias: equivalence of baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	No baseline differences