Cited by 251Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Efficacy of Brief Interventions for Hazardous Drinkers in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses

Ballesteros, Javier, Duffy, John C., Querejeta, Imanol, Ariño, Julen, González‐Pinto, Asunción·2004·Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because recent research in primary care has challenged the findings of previous reviews on the efficacy of brief interventions (BIs) on hazardous drinkers, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to update the evidence of BIs as applied in the primary care setting. METHODS: We obtained source material by searching electronic databases and reference lists and hand-searching journals. We selected randomized trials providing frequency data that allowed assessment of the efficacy of BIs on an intention-to-treat basis. Results were summarized by the odds ratio (OR) of response. When appropriate, risk difference (RD) and its inverse (number needed to treat [NNT] to achieve a positive result) were also computed. Fixed and/or random effect models were fitted according to heterogeneity estimates. RESULTS: Thirteen studies provided data for a dose-effect analysis, 12 for comparison of BIs with reference categories. No clear evidence of a dose-effect relationship was found. BIs outperformed minimal interventions and usual care (random effects model OR = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.90; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.16; NNT = 10, 95% CI = 7-17). Similar results were obtained when two influential studies were removed (fixed effect model OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.32-1.87; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.07-0.15; NNT = 9, 95% CI = 7-15). The heterogeneity between individual estimates was accounted for by the type of hazardous drinkers (heavy versus moderate) and by the characteristics of the included individuals (treatment seekers versus nontreatment seekers). The funnel plot did not show evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our results, although indicating smaller effect sizes than previous meta-analyses, do support the moderate efficacy of BIs. Further research is outlined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.alc.0000122106.84718.67

Cites

34 of 34 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
Ballesteros, J., Duffy, J. C., Querejeta, I., Ariño, J., & González‐Pinto, A.
Affiliations
Universidad de Deusto (ES)
Corresponding author
Ballesteros, Javier
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-04
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
608-618
ISSN
  • 0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0277
OpenAlex
W2090438256
Cited by
251
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
brief intervention, hazardous drinking, primary care, alcoholism, treatment efficacy, heavy drinkers, moderate drinkers, usual care comparison, dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Humans, Primary Health Care, Confidence Intervals, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio

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