Performance on Cognitive Screening Tests and Long-Term Substance Use Outcomes in Patients with Polysubstance Use Disorder

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive impairments among patients with substance use disorders are prevalent and associated with adverse treatment outcomes. However, knowledge of the predictive value of broad cognitive screening instruments on long-term treatment outcomes is limited. The present study aimed to examine the predictive value of measures from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment® (MoCA®), Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), and the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A) on self-reported long-term substance use and abstinence in patients with polysubstance use disorders (pSUD).

METHODS

A cohort (N = 164) of patients with pSUD who started a new treatment sequence in the Stavanger University Hospital catchment area were recruited and followed prospectively for 5 years. Participants completed neurocognitive testing with the MoCA®, WASI, and BRIEF-A at inclusion and were categorized as cognitively impaired or non-impaired according to recommended cut-off values. The sum score of the items from the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption scale (DUDIT-C) was used as a measure of substance use outcome 1 and 5 years after inclusion. We defined substance abstinence (DUDIT-C = 0) and heavy substance use (DUDIT-C ≥7) to determine whether cognitive impairments measured by the respective instruments were associated with and could predict abstinence and heavy substance use 1 and 5 years after baseline.

RESULTS

At the 1-year follow-up, 54% of the total sample reported total abstinence from substances. Conversely, 31% presented heavy substance use. At 5 years, 64% of the total sample reported abstinence from substances, while 25% presented heavy substance use. The results showed a statistically significant association between cognitive impairment defined from MoCA® and higher continuous scores on DUDIT-C at 1-year follow-up. There were no differences in substance abstinence or heavy substance use between patients with and without cognitive impairment at the 1- and 5-year follow-ups. Furthermore, cognitive impairment did not explain substance abstinence or heavy substance use at the 1- and 5-year follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

Generally, individuals with pSUD may be burdened and lack psychosocial resources to such an extent that cognitive functioning plays a subordinate role in long-term recovery. The present study suggests that results on screening tools assessing broad cognitive domains at treatment initiation have limited clinical value in predicting long-term substance use outcomes. There is a need to establish clinically viable instruments to assess cognitive functions with well-established clinical and ecological validity in the SUD population.

Dropout from Treatment and Desistance from Crime among Released Prisoners in Jerusalem Halfway House for Prisoners with Substance Misuse Disorder

The study aims to investigate the rates of recidivism among prisoners on parole with a substance misuse disorder who participated in the Jerusalem halfway-house, which combines supervision, employment, and a comprehensive therapeutic program. The study population included all participants who have been treated in the halfway-house (N = 125), whereas the comparison group included all prisoners with a substance misuse disorder who were released after serving their full sentences (N = 321). To reduce possible selection biases, the Propensity Score Matching method was used. Findings show that prisoners, who were treated at the Jerusalem halfway-house, are characterized by higher and frequent rates of recidivism. However, when only completers of the halfway-house were evaluated, it was found that they had lower and slower rates of recidivism. Findings suggest that completing treatment contributes to desistance from crime in the critical post-release years among participants and indicates the importance of optimal diagnostic processes before admitting prisoners to a halfway-house.

Demographic Predictors of Dropping Out of Treatment (DOT) in Substance Use Disorder Treatment

BACKGROUND

Researchers have not studied or used novel methods for identifying potential disparities for sexual minorities, those with criminal pasts, and veterans in (DOT).

METHODS

We used Bayesian logistic regression to identify factors associated with DOT, tested interaction effects, and used machine learning to classify qualitative responses.

FINDINGS

With 2,772 clients from two inpatient clinics in the Southwest United States, we found sexual minorities and females had 52% and 61%, increases and African Americans had 54% decreases in the odds of DOT. Additionally, those with a criminal past and 34.5 and older were less likely to DOT by 5% relative to clients with no prior involvement in the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrated the disparities for women and sexual minorities in DOT as well as demonstrated novel methodological approaches to addressing previously unanswered questions.

Complementary horse-assisted therapy for substance use disorders: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment completion is the greatest challenge for the treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). A previous investigation showed that complementary horse-assisted therapy (cHAT) was associated with higher retention in treatment and completion than standard treatment alone. This randomized controlled trial further explored the benefits of cHAT for patients with SUDs.

METHODS

Fifty patients in residential SUD treatment at the Department of Addiction Treatment, Oslo University Hospital, were randomly allocated to either cHAT (cHAT group) or treatment as usual alone (TAU-only group). The primary end-point was treatment completion. Secondary end-points were dropout, transfer to another treatment, and time in treatment.

RESULTS

The multinomial logistic regression analysis found no statistically significant association between intervention (cHAT) and treatment outcome (completion, dropout, transferred) among the 37 participants who were ultimately recruited to the study. Some unforeseen challenges were encountered in the study: a high number of subjects transferred to another treatment, variable attendance at cHAT sessions, and long temporary exits. Nevertheless, 44% of participants in the cHAT group completed their treatment, compared with 32% in the TAU-only group; this observation encourages further investigation in a larger sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Though no association was identified between cHAT and treatment retention or completion, our study may have been underpowered. Further work in a larger clinical population is needed; observational studies with repeated measures may also be useful for investigating whether cHAT increases retention in treatment or rates of completion, two important factors for successful SUD treatment. Trial registration The trial was registered and approved on 14 October 2011 by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics with registration number 2011/1642 and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 21 February 2013 with registration number NCT01795755.

Predicting Dropout from Inpatient Substance Use Disorder Treatment: A Prospective Validation Study of the OQ-Analyst

Background and Aims:

There is an urgent need for tools allowing therapists to identify patients at risk of dropout. The OQ-Analyst, an increasingly popular computer-based system, is used to track patient progress and predict dropout. However, we have been unable to find empirical documentation regarding the ability of OQ-Analyst to predict dropout. The aim of the present study was to perform the first direct test of the ability of the OQ-Analyst to predict dropout.

Design:

Patients were consecutively enlisted in a naturalistic, prospective, longitudinal clinical trial. As interventions based on feedback from the OQ-Analyst could alter the outcome and potentially render the prediction wrong, feedback was withheld from patients and therapists.

Setting:

The study was carried out during 2011–2013 in an inpatient substance use disorder clinic in Oslo, Norway.

Participants:

Patients aged 18 to 28 years who met criteria for a principal diagnosis of mental or behavioural disorder due to psychoactive substance use (ICD 10; F10.2–F19.2).

Measurements:

Red signal (predictions of high risk) from the Norwegian version of the OQ-Analyst were compared with dropouts identified using patient medical records as the standard for predictive accuracy.

Findings:

A total of 40 patients completed 647 OQ assessments resulting in 46 red signals. There were 27 observed dropouts, only one of which followed after a red signal. Patients indicated by the OQ-Analyst as being at high risk of dropping out were no more likely to do so than those indicated as being at low risk. Random intercept logistic regression predicting dropout from a red signal was statistically nonsignificant. Bayes factor supports no association.

Conclusions:

The study does not support the predictive ability of the OQ-Analyst for the present patient population. In the absence of empirical evidence of predictive ability, it may be better not to assume such ability.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a predictor of dropout from residential substance use disorder treatment

Background

Cognitive function is a challenge for many SUD patients, and residential SUD treatment is cognitively demanding. Treatment retention is a predictor for success in SUD treatment, and the literature links low cognitive function to increased dropout rates. In our study we investigate cognitive function and dropout in a residential SUD treatment setting, also accounting for psychological distress.

Methods

We screened a cohort (N = 142) of inpatients for cognitive function (MoCA®) and psychological distress (SCL-10) and calculated the relative risk for dropping out if over versus under the respective cut-off values (<26 and >1.85), and sex, and age-group (<23 years). We also employed a logistic regression with dropout as outcome and MoCA- and SCL-10 scores, and age and days before testing as input.

Results

Dropout risk was higher (RR = 1.70) if scoring below MoCA cut-off, and for those younger than 23 years (RR = 2.36). The other variables did not influence dropout risk. MoCA raw scores, age, and SCL-10 were associated with dropout (p < .05); with lower symptoms of psychological distress predicting increased dropout. The interaction between MoCA and SCL-10 scores was not significant (p = .26).

Conclusions

SUD patients should routinely be screened for cognitive impairment, as it predicts dropout. Screenings should be ensued by appropriate adaptations to treatment and further assessment. The MoCA is a useful screening tool for this, independent of psychological distress. Future studies should replicate our findings, investigate specific interventions, and establish SUD population norms for the MoCA.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.Comparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.Comparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.Comparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)More people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.Comparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)There was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.

The new social work

Social work practice is an industry based mostly on therapist intuition and gut feelings. There are virtually no real-time, reliable data showing the performance of any patient outcomes or on therapists providing treatment services. In this paper a new system is recommended, performance-based practice. In the future, the New Social Work proposed will not operate as a system in which patients enter community facilities to sit in waiting rooms and interact with a randomly assigned therapist for one hour a few times weekly. Social service building will transform into technology centers where therapists use tools to measure and intervene with patients in real-time. The New Social Work will finally understand that people do not recover or learn how to recover in therapist's offices-but in their own communities-with assistance from high-performance professional therapists interacting in the moment.

Therapeutic alliance dimensions and dropout in a therapeutic community: “Bond with me and I will stay”

Purpose

A better therapeutic alliance at the beginning of treatment for addictive behaviours has been found to prevent dropout. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how the development of therapeutic alliance dimensions was associated with the dropout prevention.

Design/methodology/approach

A total of 23 participants presented a substance use disorder related to heroin or cocaine and were in three distinct treatment phases of a therapeutic community. Each participant filled in the therapeutic alliance measures once a week after mini-groups. A naturalistic prospective research design was used to collate 198 repeated alliance measures.

Findings

Participants who presented stable bond development at higher levels tended to stay in treatment, whereas those who developed stable bonds at lower levels tended to drop out. The goals and tasks dimension increased significantly across the phases and was not associated with dropout.

Practical implications

To prevent dropout, therapists should pay special attention to residents who manifest difficulties in establishing stable and secure bonds and not overestimate the impact of the goals and tasks alliance dimension, as it is not a failsafe indicator of treatment retention.

Originality/value

The alliance dimensions were differentiated (bond, goals and tasks) and studied throughout the treatment, pointing out the importance of therapeutic relationship dynamic variables to prevent dropout.

[Early drop-outs and retentions in substance abuse outpatient clinics: a cross-sectional comparative study of factors that increase or decrease adherence]

Objetivo

El objetivo de este estudio es definir los factores de riesgo asociados al cese temprano en un centro ambulatorio.

Diseño

Transversal y observacional.

Emplazamiento

Centros públicos de drogodependencias de la provincia de Girona.

Participantes

La muestra estuvo conformada por 264 participantes, y el 34,8% de los participantes abandonaron el proceso antes de 2 meses después de iniciar la terapia (n = 92).

Procedimiento

Se compararon las variables clínicas y sociodemográficas de la historia clínica entre los participantes con/sin adherencia.

Mediciones principales

Se utilizó la t de Student para la comparación de medias y la ji cuadrado para el análisis de variables cualitativas. Se ajustó un modelo de regresión logística binaria con la variable dependiente adherencia.

Resultados

Los resultados indican que acudir a las citas sin compañía (OR = 3,13), ser mujer (OR = 2,44), presentar problemas con la cocaína (OR = 1,14) y ser más joven (OR = 0,89) son los factores que incrementan el riesgo de abandono temprano, mientras que acudir al servicio derivado de un centro básico de salud lo reduce (OR = 0,28).

Conclusiones

Se concluye que se debe atender especialmente a la familia del paciente y a mujeres y jóvenes, y que la adecuada coordinación entre los servicios especializados y los de base aumenta la adherencia al tratamiento de los consumidores de drogas.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opiate overdose in opioid users.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users (principally problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, June 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014); EMBASE (1974 to June 2014); CINAHL (1982 to June 2014); PsycINFO (1872 to June 2014) and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.org, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with another therapy (other psychosocial treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, or placebo) in adult (over the age of 18 years) illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, involving 594 participants, were included. Half of the trials were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias. The studies considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: (1) cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (one study; 41 participants), (2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (one study; 110 participants), (3) group or individual motivational interviewing (MI) versus hepatitis health promotion (one study; 256 participants) and (4) brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment-only (one study; 187 participants). Differences between studies precluded any data pooling. Findings are described for each trial individually.Comparison 1: low-quality evidence; no significant difference for any of the outcomes considered Alcohol abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: mean difference (MD) 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.14 to 1.94); illicit drug abstinence as maximum number of weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: MD 0.80 (95% CI -0.70 to 2.30); alcohol abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive alcohol abstinence during treatment: risk ratio (RR) 1.96 (95% CI 0.43 to 8.94); illicit drug abstinence as number achieving three or more weeks of consecutive abstinence from cocaine during treatment: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.88); alcohol abstinence during follow-up year: RR 2.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 55.06); illicit drug abstinence as abstinence from cocaine during follow-up year: RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.98), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 2: low-quality evidence, no significant difference for all the outcomes considered Alcohol use as AUDIT scores at three months: MD 0.80 (95% -1.80 to 3.40); alcohol use as AUDIT scores at nine months: MD 2.30 (95% CI -0.58 to 5.18); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at three months: MD 0.70 (95% CI -3.85 to 5.25); alcohol use as number of drinks per week at nine months: MD -0.30 (95% CI -4.79 to 4.19); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at three months: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.93); alcohol use as decreased alcohol use at nine months: RR 1.34 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.58), moderate-quality evidence.Comparison 3 (group and individual MI), low-quality evidence: no significant difference for all outcomes Group MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.40 (95% CI -2.03 to 1.23); frequency of drug use: MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.42); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.48); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.58).Individual MI: number of standard drinks consumed per day over the past month: MD -0.10 (95% CI -1.89 to 1.69); frequency of drug use (as measured using the Addiction Severity Index (ASI drug): MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03); composite drug score (frequency*severity for all drugs taken): MD -0.10 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.26); greater than 50% reduction in number of standard drinks consumed per day over the last 30 days: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26); abstinence from alcohol over the last 30 days: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.67).Comparison 4: more people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month at 6 months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60), moderate-quality evidence. No significant difference was reported for all other outcomes: number of days in the past 30 days with alcohol use at one month: MD -0.30 (95% CI -3.38 to 2.78); number of days in the past month with alcohol use at six months: MD -1.50 (95% CI -4.56 to 1.56); 25% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.57); 50% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.68); 75% reduction of drinking days in the past month: RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.75); one or more drinking days' reduction in the past month: RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.38).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.

Drop-out from addiction treatment: a systematic review of risk factors

Completion of addiction treatment is one of the most consistent factors associated with a favorable treatment outcome. Unfortunately, it is more common for a patient to drop-out of addiction treatment than to complete the treatment. To prevent drop-out, risk factors must be identified. This box-score review focuses on studies investigating the risk factors associated with drop-out from addiction treatment published in peer-reviewed journals from 1992 to 2013. A total of 122 studies involving 199,331 participants met the inclusion criteria. Contrary to recommendations from previous reviews, 91% of the included studies focused primarily on enduring patient factors, mainly demographics. The most consistent risk factors across the different study designs, samples, and measurement methods were cognitive deficits, low treatment alliance, personality disorder, and younger age. With the exception of younger age, none of the demographic factors emerged as consistent risk factors. Further research on the relationship between simple demographic factors and drop-out risk is of limited value. However, little is known about the potential risk factors related to treatment programs and to the treatment processes. Based on the review, clinical recommendations include assessing cognitive functioning and personality disorders at baseline and continuous monitoring of treatment alliance.

Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users

BACKGROUND

Problem alcohol use is common among illicit drug users and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor in poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opiate overdose in opioid users.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for problem alcohol use in illicit drug users (principally problem drug users of opiates and stimulants).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register (November 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 11, November 2011), PUBMED (1966 to 2011); EMBASE (1974 to 2011); CINAHL (1982 to 2011); PsycINFO (1872 to 2011) and reference list of articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction (SSA), International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA), International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction (ICAHR), and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (AATOD); 2) online registers of clinical trials, Current Controlled Trials (CCT), Clinical Trials.org, Center Watch and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with another therapy (other psychosocial treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies or placebo) in adult (over the age of 18 years) illicit drug users with concurrent problem alcohol use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, 594 participants, were included. Half of the trials were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias. They considered six different psychosocial interventions grouped into four comparisons: (1) cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus 12-step facilitation (N = 41), (2) brief intervention versus treatment as usual (N = 110), (3) hepatitis health promotion versus motivational interviewing (N = 256), and (4) brief motivational intervention versus assessment-only group (N = 187). Differences between studies precluded any pooling of data. Findings are described for each trial individually:comparison 1: no significant difference; comparison 2: higher rates of decreased alcohol use at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.54) and nine months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33) in the treatment as usual group; comparison 3 (group and individual format): no significant difference; comparison 4: more people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past 30 days at 6 months) in the brief motivational intervention compared to controls (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very little evidence exists that there is no difference in the effectiveness between different types of interventions and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment only or treatment as usual. No conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.