Dataset Information

Efficacy of brief intervention for drug misuse in primary care facilities: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Drug misuse is associated with significant global morbidity, mortality, economic costs and social costs. Many primary care facilities have integrated drug misuse screening and brief intervention (BI) into their usual care delivery. However, the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care has not been substantiated through meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing primary care-delivered BI for drug misuse with no intervention or minimal screening/assessment and usual care. Primary outcomes are (1) drug use frequency scores and (2) severity scores at intermediate follow-up (4-8 months). We will retrieve all studies through searches in CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO until 31 May 2020. The reference list will be supplemented with searches in trial registries (eg, www.clinicaltrials.gov) and through relevant existing study reference lists identified in the literature. We will conduct a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis for primary and secondary outcomes. We will assess statistical heterogeneity though visual inspection of a forest plot and calculate I 2 statistics. We will assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2 and evaluate the certainty of evidence through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Sensitivity analyses will account for studies with control group variations and studies with a high risk of bias. If heterogeneity is present, subgroup analyses will consider patient variables of age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, per cent insured, baseline severity and primary drug misused. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study will use published aggregate data and will not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Sahker E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7470504 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of brief intervention for drug misuse in primary care facilities: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Sahker Ethan E Sakata Masatsugu M Toyomoto Rie R Hwang Chiyoung C Yoshida Kazufumi K Luo Yan Y Watanabe Norio N Furukawa Toshi A TA

BMJ open 20200902 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Drug misuse is associated with significant global morbidity, mortality, economic costs and social costs. Many primary care facilities have integrated drug misuse screening and brief intervention (BI) into their usual care delivery. However, the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care has not been substantiated through meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy of BI for drug misuse in primary care settings.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 32878757

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough brief interventions (BIs) have shown some success for smoking cessation and alcohol misuse, it is not known if they can be applied in the emergency department (ED) to drug use and misuse. The objectives of this investigation were to assess the 3-month efficacy of a BI to reduce drug use and misuse, increase drug treatment services utilization among adult ED patients, and identify subgroups more likely to benefit from the BI.MethodsThis randomized, controlled trial enrolled 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients from two urban, academic EDs whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test indicated a need for a brief or intensive intervention. Treatment participants received a tailored BI, while control participants only completed the study questionnaires. At the 3-month follow-up, each participant's past 3-month drug use and misuse and treatment utilization were compared to his or her baseline enrollment data. Regression modeling was used to identify subgroups of patients (per demographic and clinical factors) more likely to stop or reduce their drug use or misuse or engage in drug treatment by the 3-month follow-up assessment.ResultsOf the 1,030 participants, the median age was 30 years (interquartile range = 24 to 42 years), and 46% were female; 57% were white/non-Hispanic, 24.9% were black/non-Hispanic, and 15% were Hispanic. The most commonly misused drugs were marijuana, prescription opioids, cocaine/crack, and benzodiazepines. Although at follow-up the proportions of participants reporting any past 3-month drug misuse had decreased in both study arms (control 84% vs. treatment 78%), the decreases were similar between the two study arms (Δ-6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -13.0% to 0.0). In addition, at follow-up there were no differences between study arms in those who were currently receiving drug treatment (Δ1.8; 95% CI = -3.5 to 6.8), who had received treatment during the past 3 months (Δ-2.0; 95% CI = -6.5 to 2.4), or who at least contacted a treatment program (Δ 1.7; 95% CI = -2.4 to 6.1). Those whose baseline screening indicated the need for a brief instead of a more intensive intervention, and those currently engaged in drug treatment at the 3-month follow-up, were generally more likely to stop or decrease their drug use/misuse.ConclusionsThe BI employed in this study did not reduce drug use and misuse or increase treatment utilization more than the control condition over a 3-month period. Future research should help determine what role, if any, BIs should play in affecting drug use and misuse among ED patients.

Project description:ImportanceThe United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy.ObjectiveTo test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)-a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)-compared with no brief intervention.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts.InterventionsTwo interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master's-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization.ResultsAt baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity.Conclusions and relevanceBrief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941.

Project description:BackgroundObesity affects 25% of the UK adult population but modest weight loss can reduce the incidence of obesity-related chronic disease. Some effective weight loss treatments exist but there is no nationally available National Health Service (NHS) treatment service, and general practitioners (GPs) rarely discuss weight management with patients or support behavior change. Evidence shows that commercial weight management services, that most primary care trusts have 'on prescription', are more effective than primary care treatment.Methods/designWe propose a controlled trial where patients will be randomized to receive either the offer of help by referral to a weight management service and follow-up to assess progress, or advice to lose weight on medical grounds. The primary outcome will be weight change at 12-months. Other questions are: what actions do people take to manage their weight in response to the two GP intervention types? How do obese patients feel about GPs opportunistically discussing weight management and how does this vary by intervention type? How do GPs feel about raising the issue opportunistically and giving the two types of brief intervention? What is the cost per kg/m2 lost for each intervention? Research assistants visiting GP practices in England (n?=?60) would objectively measure weight and height prior to GP consultations and randomize willing patients (body mass index 30+, excess body fat, 18+ years) using sealed envelopes. Full recruitment (n?=?1824) is feasible in 46 weeks, requiring six sessions of advice-giving per GP. Participants will be contacted at 3 months (postintervention) via telephone to identify actions they have taken to manage their weight. We will book appointments for participants to be seen at their GP practice for a 12-month follow-up.DiscussionTrial results could make the case for brief interventions for obese people consulting their GP and introduce widespread simple treatments akin to the NHS Stop Smoking Service. Likewise, the intervention could be introduced in the Quality and Outcomes Framework and influence practice worldwide.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN26563137.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).ObjectiveTo determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.InterventionsParticipants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.ResultsMean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of brief intervention for drug misuse in primary care facilities: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Publications

Efficacy of brief intervention for drug misuse in primary care facilities: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets