Cited by 54Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Effects of Brief Substance Use Interventions Delivered in General Medical Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Tanner‐Smith, Emily E., Parr, Nicholas J., Schweer‐Collins, Maria, Saitz, Richard·2022·Addiction

Abstract

Aims: To estimate effects of brief substance use interventions delivered in general medical settings. Methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials conducted since 1990 of brief substance use interventions in patients of any age or severity level recruited in general medical settings. Primary outcomes were any measure of substance use or substance‐related consequences (indexed with Hedges’ g and risk ratios). Mixed‐effects meta‐regressions were used to estimate overall effects and predictors of effect variability. Analyses were conducted separately by brief intervention (BI) target substance: alcohol only or drugs. Findings: A total of 116 trials (64 439 participants) were identified; 111 (62 263 participants) provided effect size data and were included in the meta‐analysis. Drug‐targeted BIs yielded significant small improvements in multiple drug/mixed substance use (Hedges' g ) = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.002, 0.15), but after adjusting for multiple comparisons, they did not produce significant effects on cannabis use ( = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.001, 0.12), alcohol use ( = 0.08; 95% CI = −0.0003, 0.17), or consequences ( = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.10). Drug‐targeted BIs yielded larger improvements in multiple drug/mixed substance use when delivered by a general practitioner ( = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.187, 0.193). Alcohol‐targeted BIs yielded small beneficial effects on alcohol use ( = 0.12; 95% CI 0.08, 0.16), but no evidence of an effect on consequences ( = 0.05; 95% CI = −0.04, 0.13). However, alcohol‐targeted BIs only had beneficial effects on alcohol use when delivered in general medical settings = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.24); the findings were inconclusive for those delivered in emergency department/trauma centers ( = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.10). Conclusions: When delivered in general medical settings, alcohol‐targeted brief interventions may produce small beneficial reductions in drinking (equivalent to a reduction in 1 drinking day per month). There is limited evidence regarding the effects of drug‐targeted brief interventions on drug use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.15674

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Motivational brief interventions have benefits for alcohol and other substance use problems among adolescents and adults.

    “there are benefits for alcohol and other substance use problems among adolescents (45) and adults (46, 47)”

    From Initial insights from a quality improvement initiative to develop an evidence-informed young adult substance use program (2022) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Results (Alcohol-targeted interventions; page not provided) report small reductions in alcohol use in both adolescent/young-adult and adult or mixed-age samples. The Conclusion (page not provided) says there are too few drug-targeted trials to determine whether brief interventions consistently reduce drug use or its consequences. The paper therefore supports an alcohol-use benefit, but not a general benefit for other substance use problems; it also does not establish the claim specifically for motivational brief interventions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tanner et al. in a systematic review and meta-analysis of BIs delivered in general medical settings found that BIs had small beneficial effects on alcohol use.

    “Tanner et al. [126] in a systematic review and meta-analysis of BIs delivered in general medical settings found that BIs had small beneficial effects on alcohol use.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tanner‐Smith, E. E., Parr, N. J., Schweer‐Collins, M., & Saitz, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Tanner‐Smith, Emily E.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-10-14
Volume
117
Issue
4
Pages
877-889
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W3206867129
Cited by
54
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA043589.)
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 › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
alcohol consumption, drug use, cannabis use, general practitioners, emergency department, trauma centers, primary care, multiple drug use, harm reduction, addiction treatment, substance use disorder screening
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Ethanol, Counseling, Crisis Intervention, Humans, Substance-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