Cited by 115Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive‐behavioural interventions among regular users of amphetamine

Baker, Amanda, Boggs, Tracy G., Lewin, Terry J.·2001·Addiction

Abstract

Aims. To identify whether brief cognitive‐behavioural interventions are feasible among regular users of amphetamine, to assess the effectiveness of intervention overall and to pilot two‐ and four‐session interventions. Design. Subjects were assigned randomly to individually receive a cognitive‐behavioural intervention ( n = 32) of either two or four sessions' duration or a self‐help booklet (control condition; n = 32). Setting. Subjects were volunteers recruited from needle exchange schemes and treatment centres in Newcastle, Australia. Participants. Regular (at least monthly) users of amphetamine were recruited. Intervention. Either four sessions of cognitive‐behaviour therapy, consisting of a motivational interview and skills training in avoidance of high‐risk situations, coping with craving and relapse prevention, or two sessions consisting of a motivational interview and discussion of skills. Measurements. The Opiate Treatment Index was the main measure at pre‐treatment and 6‐month follow‐up. Findings. There was a significant reduction in amphetamine use among the sample as a whole, with inconclusive differences between intervention subgroups. There was a moderate overall intervention effect, with the intervention group reporting over twice the reduction in daily amphetamine use as the control group. Significantly more people in the cognitive‐behavioural intervention condition abstained from amphetamine at 6‐month follow‐up compared to the control condition. Conclusion. Brief cognitive‐behavioural interventions appear feasible among regular users of amphetamine. A larger randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of such interventions appears warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96912797.x

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, A., Boggs, T. G., & Lewin, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09
Volume
96
Issue
9
Pages
1279-1287
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2100835521
Cited by
114
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
amphetamine use, cognitive-behavioural intervention, brief intervention, motivational interviewing, craving, relapse prevention, self-help booklet, needle exchange programs, treatment centers, drug use reduction
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, New South Wales, Patient Participation, Psychotherapy, Brief, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Amphetamine-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review