Examining the influence of adolescent:provider alliance on youth hazardous drinking: Findings from a randomized controlled trial

The relationship between patient-centred care for substance use disorders and patient outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient-centred care (PCC) is considered crucial for high-quality substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and care, but it is unclear whether PCC is associated with enhanced outcomes. This review aimed to map available evidence of the relationship between PCC and outcomes across the SUD treatment continuum.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature on the relationship between PCC for SUD and service outcomes in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English between January 1994 and June 2024. After screening 5268 titles and abstracts and 186 full texts in duplicate, data were extracted from 135 articles and narratively synthesized according to six PCC dimensions (therapeutic alliance, shared decision-making, personalised supports, integrated care for co-occurring disorders, trauma-informed and culturally-informed care).

RESULTS

The findings from this review suggest largely positive associations between these PCC components and the outcomes of generalist and specialist SUD services. Few studies (<1 %) assessed more than one PCC dimension. The therapeutic alliance was the most frequently assessed dimension (35.6 %, 48/135 articles), followed by shared decision-making (16.3 %, 22/135 articles), trauma-informed care (14.8 %, 20/135 articles), integrated care (13.3 %, 18/135 articles), and personalised services (13.3 %, 18/135 articles). PCC in generalist services was associated with greater SUD treatment utilization and fewer adverse events. PCC in specialist SUD treatment was largely associated with better SUD outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted evidence gaps on the relationship between PCC and SUD service outcomes, with literature scant for some PCC dimensions and studies typically examining a single dimension of PCC. More research is needed to understand the relative importance of each PCC dimension for predicting SUD service outcomes, how these dimensions interact to influence outcomes, and to develop and evaluate interventions for enhancing PCC.

Multilevel associations of peer cognitive factors and adolescent cannabis use in a legal recreational cannabis region

Background

Cannabis use can have unintended, harmful consequences for adolescents, a developmental group that struggles with heightened pressure to align with peer attitudes and behaviors. The role of social-cognitive factors in shifting cannabis use dynamics remains under explored, particularly in states where recreational cannabis use is legal.

Objectives

The present study examined multilevel longitudinal associations between resistance to peer influence, peer norms, and adolescent cannabis use over the course of 12 months.

Method

Participants were N=204 adolescents ages 15-19 (M age = 18.68; 67% female) recruited via community outreach after the legalization of adult (age 21+) recreational cannabis use in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region. Eligible participants endorsed 1+ heavy episodic drinking (HED) episode in the prior two months. Data were collected across four timepoints over 12 months. Multilevel latent growth curve modeling investigated associations between time-varying cognitive factors (resistance to peer influence, peer norms) and two cannabis outcomes (hazardous use, past-month use).

Results

Findings showed individual increases in hazardous cannabis use over time were significantly associated with adolescents reporting higher peer norms (i.e., higher perceived prevalence and frequency of peer cannabis use) and lower resistance to peer influence. When assessing between-adolescent differences, hazardous cannabis use was only associated with peer norms. Individual variation over time and between-adolescent differences on past-month cannabis use was associated with peer norms, but not resistance to peer influence.

Conclusions

Evolving cognitive factors like resistance to peer influence and peer norms may enhance understanding of longitudinal changes in hazardous cannabis use among adolescents and implicate helpful targets for prevention and intervention. It is a public health priority to identify factors that contribute to adolescent use trajectories in this period of growing cannabis legislation in order to guide the development of impactful prevention and intervention strategies.

Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction

BACKGROUND

Substance use is a global issue, with around 30 to 35 million individuals estimated to have a substance-use disorder. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a client-centred method that aims to strengthen a person's motivation and commitment to a specific goal by exploring their reasons for change and resolving ambivalence, in an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion. This review updates the 2011 version by Smedslund and colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of motivational interviewing for substance use on the extent of substance use, readiness to change, and retention in treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 18 electronic databases, six websites, four mailing lists, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. The last search dates were in February 2021 and November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with individuals using drugs, alcohol, or both. Interventions were MI or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), delivered individually and face to face. Eligible control interventions were no intervention, treatment as usual, assessment and feedback, or other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We conducted meta-analyses for the three outcomes (extent of substance use, readiness to change, retention in treatment) at four time points (post-intervention, short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 93 studies with 22,776 participants. MI was delivered in one to nine sessions. Session durations varied, from as little as 10 minutes to as long as 148 minutes per session, across included studies. Study settings included inpatient and outpatient clinics, universities, army recruitment centres, veterans' health centres, and prisons. We judged 69 studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain and 24 studies to be at low or unclear risk. Comparing MI to no intervention revealed a small to moderate effect of MI in substance use post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.89; I2 = 75%; 6 studies, 471 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect was weaker at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.28; 19 studies, 3351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This comparison revealed a difference in favour of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20; 16 studies, 3137 participants; low-certainty evidence) and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.25; 9 studies, 1525 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.22; 5 studies, 1495 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Retention in treatment was slightly higher with MI (SMD 0.26, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.52; 2 studies, 427 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparing MI to treatment as usual revealed a very small negative effect in substance use post-intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; 5 studies, 976 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; 14 studies, 3066 participants), a very small benefit of MI at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; 9 studies, 1624 participants), and no difference at long-term follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; 8 studies, 1449 participants), all with low-certainty evidence. There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.39; 2 studies, 150 participants) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16; 5 studies, 1295 participants), both with very low-certainty evidence. Comparing MI to assessment and feedback revealed no difference in substance use at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; 7 studies, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence). A small benefit for MI was shown at medium-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; 6 studies, 688 participants) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41; 3 studies, 448 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. None of the studies in this comparison measured substance use at the post-intervention time point, readiness to change, and retention in treatment. Comparing MI to another active intervention revealed no difference in substance use at any follow-up time point, all with low-certainty evidence: post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.29; 3 studies, 338 participants); short-term (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; 18 studies, 2795 participants); medium-term (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 15 studies, 2352 participants); and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 10 studies, 1908 participants). There was no difference in readiness to change (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.30; 5 studies, 988 participants; low-certainty evidence) and retention in treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 12 studies, 1945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to inconsistency, study limitations, publication bias, and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing may reduce substance use compared with no intervention up to a short follow-up period. MI probably reduces substance use slightly compared with assessment and feedback over medium- and long-term periods. MI may make little to no difference to substance use compared to treatment as usual and another active intervention. It is unclear if MI has an effect on readiness to change and retention in treatment. The studies included in this review were heterogeneous in many respects, including the characteristics of participants, substance(s) used, and interventions. Given the widespread use of MI and the many studies examining MI, it is very important that counsellors adhere to and report quality conditions so that only studies in which the intervention implemented was actually MI are included in evidence syntheses and systematic reviews. Overall, we have moderate to no confidence in the evidence, which forces us to be careful about our conclusions. Consequently, future studies are likely to change the findings and conclusions of this review.