best practice

Last updated : 05.08.2019
Rating
  • Unknown effectiveness

In a systematic review (Gowing 2009, 4 RCTs, N=394), there was no significant difference in:

  • completion rate (RR 1.26, 95 % CI 0.80 to 2.00);
  • relapse to use rates (RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.52 to 1.35).
Name of response option
  • Assisted withdrawal
Desired outcome(s)
  • reduce relapse rates
  • retain patients in treatment
Area(s)
  • Treatment
Specific substance or pattern of use
  • opioids

References

Gowing, L.,Ali, R. and White, JM. (2009) 'Opioid antagonists with minimal sedation for opioid withdrawal', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, Art. No.: CD002022. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002021.pub3
Last updated : 09.12.2021
Rating
  • Beneficial

Digital prevention and treatment interventions were found in a systematic review with meta-analysis (Boumparis et al., 2019, 30 studies, N=13 333) to have a small but significant effect in:

  • reducing Cannabis use at post-treatment in the prevention interventions (6 studies, N=2564, g=0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p= 0.001) and in the treatment interventions (17 comparisons, N=3813, g=0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p= 0.02) as compared with controls;
  • the effects of prevention interventions were maintained at follow-ups of up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N=2445, g=0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33,p < 0.001) but were no longer statistically significant for treatment interventions

 

Computerized interventions were confirmed to be effective, by an additional systematic review with meta-analysis (Olmos et al 2017, 9 RCTS; n=2963) in:

  • reducing cannabis use (self-reported or urine testing) at 6 months follow-up (SMD: -0.19; 85% CI: -0.26 to -0.11; ).

Computerized interventions included personalised online feedback, motivational interviewing, computer-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and clinician-assisted computer-based interventions.

 

Digital interventions (internet- or computer-based interventions) were found in a systematic review with meta-analysis (Hoch et al., 2016, 4 studies, N=1 928) to be effective in:

  • reducing cannabis use (self-reported) after 3 month follow-up (MD – 4.07, 95 % CI -5.8 to -2.34). The largest treatment effects were found for the web-based online chat with a trained psychotherapist, plus online diary with weekly personalized, written feedback based on CBT/MI.
Name of response option
  • Digital interventions
Desired outcome(s)
  • reduce substance use
Area(s)
  • Treatment
Specific substance or pattern of use
  • cannabis

References

Hoch E, Preuss UW, Ferri M, Simon R. (2016), Digital Interventions for Problematic Cannabis Users in Non-Clinical Settings: Findings from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Eur Addict Res. 2016 May 4;22(5):233-242.
Olmos A, Tirado-Muñoz J, Farré M, Torrens M. The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Addictive Behaviors, Volume 79, 2018, Pages 52-60.
Boumparis N., Loheide-Niesmann L., Blankers M., Ebert D.D., Korf D., Schaub P. M., Spijkerman R., Tait R.J., Riper, H. (2019) Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 200, 2019.
Last updated : 17.12.2019
Rating
  • Unknown effectiveness

Different interventions targeting drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness (including interpersonal psychotherapy, multi‐systemic therapy, legal defence wrap‐around services, and motivational interviewing) were found in a systematic systematic review  (Perry et al., 2019, 13 RTCs, N = 2 606)  to have no significant effect in:

  • reducing self-reported drug use
  • reducing re-arrest rates
  • reducing criminal activity
Name of response option
  • Interventions in prison
Desired outcome(s)
  • reduce re-arrests rates
  • reduce substance use
Area(s)
  • Treatment
Specific substance or pattern of use
  • co-morbidity
Target group(s) or setting(s)
  • dual-diagnosis patients
  • prison

References

Perry AE, Martyn‐St James M, Burns L, Hewitt C, Glanville JM, Aboaja A, Thakkar P, Santosh Kumar KM, Pearson C, Wright K, Swami S. Interventions for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD010901. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010901.pub3.
Last updated : 17.12.2019
Rating
  • Likely to be beneficial

When compared to treatment as usual therapeutic communities in prison and aftercare were found in a systematic  review (Perry et al., 2019, 13 RTCs, N = 2 606) to have a moderate effect in:

  • reducing re-incarceration rates (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 - 0.67)
  • reducing involvement in subsequent criminal activity (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 - 0.84)
Name of response option
  • Therapeutic communities
Desired outcome(s)
  • reduce re-incarceration rates
Area(s)
  • Treatment
Specific substance or pattern of use
  • co-morbidity
Target group(s) or setting(s)
  • dual-diagnosis patients
  • prison

References

Perry AE, Martyn‐St James M, Burns L, Hewitt C, Glanville JM, Aboaja A, Thakkar P, Santosh Kumar KM, Pearson C, Wright K, Swami S. Interventions for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD010901. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010901.pub3.
Document library

Time, consensus and implementation: challenges for effective knowledge exchange

A sound evidence base to inform decision-making is essential when allocating available, and often scarce, resources to effective interventions.
News

EMCDDA meeting focuses on quality standards in drug demand reduction

Quality standards in drug demand reduction will be the focus of discussions today at an EMCDDA meeting gathering experts from seven countries. The purpose of the meeting is to present how the...
Subscribe to best practice
Top