Cited by 99Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSmoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Brief Behavioral Interventions for Substance Use in Adolescents: A Meta-analysis

Steele, Dale W., Becker, Sara J., Danko, Kristin J., Balk, Ethan M., Adam, Gaelen P., Saldanha, Ian J., Trikalinos, Thomas A.·2020·Pediatrics

Abstract

CONTEXT: Adolescents with problematic substance use (SU) are at risk for far-reaching adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence regarding the effects of brief behavioral interventions for adolescents (12–20 years) with problematic SU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted literature searches in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo through October 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We screened 33 272 records and citations for interventions in adolescents with at least problematic SU, retrieved 1831 articles, and selected 22 randomized controlled trials of brief interventions meeting eligibility criteria for meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. We categorized brief interventions into components, including motivational interviewing (MI), psychoeducation, and treatment as usual. Outcomes included SU (abstinence, days used per month) for alcohol and cannabis, and substance-related problem scales. Strength of evidence (SoE) was assessed. RESULTS: Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted by using random effects models. Compared to treatment as usual, the use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use days by 0.7 days per month (95% credible interval [CrI]: −1.6 to 0.02; low SoE), alcohol use days by 1.1 days per month (95% CrI −2.2 to −0.3; moderate SoE), and overall substance-related problems by a standardized net mean difference of 0.5 (95% CrI –1.0 to 0; low SoE). The use of MI did not reduce cannabis use days, with a net mean difference of −0.05 days per month (95% CrI: −0.26 to 0.14; moderate SoE). LIMITATIONS: There was lack of consistently reported outcomes and limited available comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MI reduces heavy alcohol use, alcohol use days, and SU-related problems in adolescents but does not reduce cannabis use days.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2020-0351

Cites

55 of 55 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
Steele, D. W., Becker, S. J., Danko, K. J., Balk, E. M., Adam, G. P., Saldanha, I. J., & Trikalinos, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Pediatrics and Genetics (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health and
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2020-10-01
Volume
146
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W3085177757
Cited by
99
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
brief behavioral intervention, adolescent substance use, motivational interviewing, psychoeducation, alcohol consumption, cannabis use, heavy drinking days, substance-related problems, abstinence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Humans, Psychotherapy, Brief, Substance-Related Disorders, Motivational Interviewing

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