Summary of findings for the main comparison. motivational interviewing compared to no treatment control group for substance abuse.
| motivational interviewing compared to no treatment control group for substance abuse | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with substance abuse Settings: Intervention: motivational interviewing Comparison: no treatment control group | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| no treatment control group | motivational interviewing | |||||
| amount of substance abuse post intervention | The mean amount of substance abuse post intervention in the intervention groups was 0.79 standard deviations lower (0.48 to 1.09 higher) | 202 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |||
| amount of substance abuse short follow‐up Follow‐up: 1‐6 months | The mean amount of substance abuse short follow‐up in the intervention groups was 0.17 standard deviations lower (0.09 to 0.26 higher) | 2327 (15 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |||
| amount of substance abuse medium follow‐up Follow‐up: 7‐12 months | The mean amount of substance abuse medium follow‐up in the intervention groups was 0.15 standard deviations higher (0.04 to 0.25 higher) | 2326 (12 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| amount of substance abuse long follow‐up Follow‐up: mean 12 months | The mean amount of substance abuse long follow‐up in the intervention groups was 0.06 standard deviations lower (0.16 lower to 0.28 higher) | 363 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3 | |||
| Readiness for change | The mean Readiness for change in the intervention groups was 0.05 standard deviations higher (0.11 lower to 0.22 higher) | 1495 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low4,5 | |||
| Retention Follow‐up: 0‐3 months | The mean Retention in the intervention groups was 0.26 standard deviations higher (0 to 0.52 higher) | 427 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low4,6,7 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Unclear randomisation and blinding of assessor. 2 Confidence interval from 0.48 to 1.09 3 Confidence interval includes both negative and positive values. 4 Incomplete outcome data addressed. Unclear allocation concealment and blinding. 5 I‐squared = 48%. 6 I‐squared = 36%. 7 Confidence interval from ‐0.00 to 0.50.