Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, X3C16, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1701 Divisadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94115, United States.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020 Jul 1;212:108065. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108065. Epub 2020 May 13.
Many people who need specialty treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) do not receive it. Clinical interventions could increase treatment utilization but are not routinely used. This systematic review aimed to describe clinical interventions that may increase SUD specialty treatment utilization (i.e., treatment initiation, attendance, meaningful engagement) and to determine which intervention(s) most consistently increase treatment utilization.
We conducted a systematic review of clinical intervention studies (published in English between 2000 and 2017) reporting outcomes relevant to specialty SUD treatment utilization. Outcomes were treatment initiation, attendance, and meaningful engagement. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with bias scores < 3 were included in a synthesis of results. Proportions of positive to negative utilization outcomes were calculated for each low-bias RCT; studies with 50% positive outcomes or more were considered "majority-positive". Studies were categorized by theory-based approach.
Twenty-three RCTs had low risk of bias and were synthesized. Among intervention types with two or more studies, cognitive-behavioral (100% majority-positive) and coordinated care (67% majority-positive) interventions were most likely to increase treatment initiation, while 12-step promotion interventions were most likely to increase treatment attendance (50% majority-positive). One study (12-step promotion) measured meaningful engagement, with majority-positive outcomes.
A systematic review and narrative synthesis of clinical interventions promoting specialty SUD treatment utilization provided preliminary evidence that cognitive-behavioral and coordinated care interventions may increase treatment initiation, while 12-step promotion interventions may promote treatment attendance. More quality studies and greater consistency in treatment utilization measurement are needed.
许多需要药物使用障碍(SUD)专业治疗的人并未得到治疗。临床干预措施可以增加治疗的利用率,但并未常规使用。本系统评价旨在描述可能增加 SUD 专业治疗利用率(即治疗开始、参与度和有效参与)的临床干预措施,并确定哪些干预措施最能一致地提高治疗利用率。
我们对 2000 年至 2017 年间发表的与专业 SUD 治疗利用率相关的临床干预研究进行了系统评价。结局指标为治疗开始、参与度和有效参与。使用 Cochrane 指南评估偏倚风险,偏倚评分<3 的随机对照试验(RCT)被纳入结果综合分析。对每个低偏倚 RCT 中阳性与阴性利用率结局的比例进行了计算;阳性结局占比超过 50%的研究被认为是“多数阳性”。研究按基于理论的方法进行分类。
23 项 RCT 具有低偏倚风险并被综合分析。在具有两项或以上研究的干预类型中,认知行为(100%多数阳性)和协调护理(67%多数阳性)干预最有可能增加治疗开始,而 12 步推广干预最有可能增加治疗参与度(50%多数阳性)。一项研究(12 步推广)测量了有效参与度,结果呈多数阳性。
对促进专业 SUD 治疗利用率的临床干预措施进行的系统评价和叙述性综合分析提供了初步证据,表明认知行为和协调护理干预措施可能增加治疗开始,而 12 步推广干预措施可能促进治疗参与度。需要更多高质量的研究和更一致的治疗利用率测量。