Summary of findings 4. motivational interviewing compared to other active intervention for substance abuse.
| motivational interviewing compared to other active intervention for substance abuse | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with substance abuse Settings: Intervention: motivational interviewing Comparison: other active intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| other active intervention | motivational interviewing | |||||
| amount of substance abuse post intervention | The mean amount of substance abuse post intervention in the intervention groups was 0.07 standard deviations higher (0.37 lower to 0.23 higher) | 185 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |||
| 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 0.02 standard deviations lower (0.07 lower to 0.12 higher) | 2137 (12 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | |||
| amount of substance abuse medium follow‐up Follow‐up: 6‐12 months | The mean amount of substance abuse medium follow‐up in the intervention groups was 0.02 standard deviations higher (0.16 lower to 0.13 higher) | 1586 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | |||
| amount of substance abuse long follow‐up Follow‐up: median 12 months | The mean amount of substance abuse long follow‐up in the intervention groups was 0.03 standard deviations higher (0.21 lower to 0.14 higher) | 437 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |||
| Retention Follow‐up: 0‐6 months | The mean Retention in the intervention groups was 0.01 standard deviations higher (0.45 lower to 0.47 higher) | 447 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3,4 | |||
| Readiness for change | The mean Readiness for change in the intervention groups was 0.03 standard deviations higher (0.24 lower to 0.18 higher) | 350 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,5 | |||
| *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 Unclear randomisation. 3 I‐squared = 29%. 4 Wide confidence interval. 5 Wide confidence interval.