Summary of findings 2. motivational interviewing compared to treatment as usual for substance abuse.
| motivational interviewing compared to treatment as usual for substance abuse | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with substance abuse Settings: Intervention: motivational interviewing Comparison: treatment as usual | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| treatment as usual | motivational interviewing | |||||
| amount of substance abuse post intervention | The mean amount of substance abuse post intervention in the intervention groups was 0.01 standard deviations lower (0.09 lower to 0.11 higher) | 1940 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |||
| 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 0.01 standard deviations lower (0.08 lower to 0.1 higher) | 2102 (10 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |||
| amount of substance abuse medium follwo‐up Follow‐up: median 12 months | The mean amount of substance abuse medium follwo‐up in the intervention groups was 0.08 standard deviations lower (0.05 lower to 0.21 higher) | 890 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| Retention Follow‐up: 0‐12 months | The mean Retention in the intervention groups was 0.11 standard deviations lower (0.41 lower to 0.19 higher) | 1190 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |||
| *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. Unclear completeness of outcome reporting. 2 Unclear allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. 3 I‐squared = 64%. 4 Wide confidence interval.