Summary of findings 3. motivational interviewing compared to assessment and feedback for substance abuse.
| motivational interviewing compared to assessment and feedback for substance abuse | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with substance abuse Settings: Intervention: motivational interviewing Comparison: assessment and feedback | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| assessment and feedback | motivational interviewing | |||||
| 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 0.12 standard deviations lower (0.01 lower to 0.24 higher) | 986 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |||
| 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 0.38 standard deviations lower (0.1 to 0.66 higher) | 265 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |||
| *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 outcome assessor. 2 Unclear whether outcome reporting is complete.