Impulsive or depressive personality traits do not impede behavioral change after brief alcohol interventions

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.

Efficacy of screening and brief intervention for hazardous alcohol use in patients with mood disorders: A randomized clinical trial from a psychiatric out-patient clinic in India

AIM

To determine the efficacy of individual-based, face-to-face screening and brief intervention (SBI) for hazardous alcohol use among treatment-seeking outpatients with mood disorders.

METHODS

It was a parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of 84 participants who met the selection criteria for hazardous alcohol use, defined by alcohol use disorder identification test (AUDIT) score 8-19. Participants were randomly allocated to either SBI or general advice group. Both groups had received a standard care for mood disorders. The outcome was assessed after 3 months. The primary outcome was a change in the mean AUDIT score and the secondary outcomes were a change in frequency of heavy episodic drinking and stages of motivation.

RESULTS

Majority (60%) had major depressive episodes. There was no significant difference in baseline demography and clinical variables between the groups. Both intention to treat and per-protocol analyses showed a small but significant effect of SBI on mean AUDIT score. Age, baseline AUDIT, and motivation did not moderate the effect. SBI was associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of heavy drinking and improvement in stages of motivation.

CONCLUSION

SBI among patients with mood disorders had a small but significant effect on alcohol use.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

The Effect of Brief Interventions for Alcohol Among People with Comorbid Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and Narrative Synthesis

Aims

To review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials.

Results

Seventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias.

Conclusions

Overall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively.

A Systematic Review of School-Based Alcohol and other Drug Prevention Programs

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use in adolescents constitutes a major public health concern. Europe is the heaviest drinking region of the world. Several school-based alcohol prevention programs have been developed but it is not clear whether they are really effective. The present study was aimed at identifying the typology with the best evidence of effectiveness in European studies.

METHODS

A systematic search of meta-analyses and/or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions school-based prevention programs aimed at preventing alcohol consumption or changing the attitudes to consume alcohol.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis published in 2011 and 12 RCTs more recently published were identified. The meta-analysis evaluated 53 RCTs but only 11.3% of them were conducted in Europe. Globally, 23 RCTs (43.4%) showed some evidence of effectiveness, and 30 RCTs (56.6%) did not find significant difference between the groups. According to the conclusions of the meta-analysis, the Unplugged program should be considered as a practice option in Europe. Among the other 12 RCTs, 42% were conducted in Europe. Globally, 7 studies (58.3%) achieved positive results, and 5 studies (41.7%) did not find significant differences or produced a mixed pattern of results. Three of the 5 European trials (60%) used the Unplugged program with positive results.

CONCLUSION

Even if further studies should be conducted to confirm these results, Unplugged appears to be the prevention project with the best evidence of effectiveness in European studies.

Gender and depression moderate response to brief motivational intervention for alcohol misuse among college students

OBJECTIVE

Brief motivational interventions (BMIs) effectively reduce problematic drinking in college students. However, not all students benefit, and little is known about the subgroups of students for whom BMIs are most effective. In the present study, we examined 2 factors that may influence BMI efficacy: gender and depression.

METHOD

We reanalyzed data from a clinical trial in which heavy drinking students (N = 330; 65% female) were randomized to a BMI (n = 165) or an assessment only control (n = 165). Depression was assessed at baseline; past-month typical drinks per week, heavy drinking frequency, and consequences were assessed at baseline and 1 month. Three- and 2-way interactions among intervention condition (BMI vs. control), gender (male vs. female), and depression (low vs. high) were tested.

RESULTS

We observed 3-way interaction effects on 2 outcomes: (a) typical drinks per week and (b) frequency of heavy drinking at 1 month. Relative to controls and adjusting for baseline drinking, low-depression women reduced their drinking more after a BMI whereas high-depression women did not show differential improvement. In contrast, high-depression men showed significant reductions in weekly drinks following the BMI whereas low-depression men did not show differential improvement. In addition, higher levels of depression were associated with higher levels of consequences at follow-up across conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

BMIs are indicated for heavy drinking, depressed men, consistent with recommendations for implementing screening and brief intervention in mental health settings. However, BMIs may need to be refined to enhance their efficacy for depressed women.

Depressive symptoms moderate treatment response to brief intervention for prevention of alcohol exposed pregnancy

The previously published randomized controlled trial, EARLY, tested the efficacy of a motivational interviewing (MI) plus feedback condition against a video information (VI) condition and an informational brochure (IB) condition in reducing drinking and/or increasing contraception effectiveness, and found that drinking and rates of effective contraception improved in all conditions. In this reanalysis of the data from EARLY, potential moderating effects of depressive, global distress, and anxiety symptoms in response to the three brief interventions to reduce alcohol exposed pregnancy risk were examined. Women with higher levels of depression at baseline reported greater improvements in the MI plus feedback condition versus the VI and IB conditions with depression moderating both drinking and contraceptive effectiveness. Global distress moderated only drinking behavior in the MI plus feedback but not other groups and anxiety was not a moderator of outcome in any of the intervention groups. Depressed or distressed women at risk for AEP may benefit from an AEP risk reduction intervention that incorporates interaction with a treatment provider versus educational information provided via video or written materials.