The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed.

The chapter on stochastically dependent effect sizes by Gleser and Olkin (2009) in The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.) describes. Download Here: tinyurl.com/ohnxrcn When the first edition of The Handbook of Research. In book: Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology A meta-analysis is literally an analysis of analyses, but conventionally the term.

The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis

Background: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions have been previously validated as a 3-item screen for alcohol misuse and implemented nationwide in Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics. However, the AUDIT-C's validity and optimal screening threshold(s) in other clinical populations are unknown.

Methods: This cross-sectional validation study compared screening questionnaires with standardized interviews in 392 male and 927 female adult outpatients at an academic family practice clinic from 1993 to 1994. The AUDIT-C, full AUDIT, self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, and an augmented CAGE questionnaire were compared with an interview primary reference standard of alcohol misuse, defined as a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. alcohol use disorder and/or drinking above recommended limits in the past year.

Results: Based on interviews with 92% of eligible patients, 128 (33%) men and 177 (19%) women met the criteria for alcohol misuse. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the AUDIT-C were 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in men and women, respectively (p=0.04). Based on AUROC curves, the AUDIT-C performed as well as the full AUDIT and significantly better than self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, or the augmented CAGE questionnaire (p-values <0.001). The AUDIT-C screening thresholds that simultaneously maximized sensitivity and specificity were ≥4 in men (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.89) and ≥3 in women (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.91).

Conclusions: The AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (≥4) and women (≥3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.

AUDIT-C as a Brief Screen for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care

Excessive drinking contributes significantly to social problems, physical and psychological illness, injury and death Hidden effects include increased levels of violence, accidents and suicide Most alcohol-related harm is caused by excessive drinkers whose consumption exceeds recommended drinking levels, not the drinkers with severe alcohol dependency problems One way to reduce consumption levels in a community may be to provide a brief intervention in primary care over one to four sessions This is provided by healthcare workers such as general physicians, nurses or psychologists In general practice, patients are routinely asked about alcohol consumption during registration, general health checks and as part of health screening (using a questionnaire) They tend not to be seeking help for alcohol problems when presenting The intervention they are offered includes feedback on alcohol use and harms, identification of high risk situations for drinking and coping strategies, increased motivation and the development of a personal plan to reduce drinking It takes place within the time-frame of a standard consultation, 5 to 15 minutes for a general physician, longer for a nurseA total of 29 controlled trials from various countries were identified, in general practice (24 trials) or an emergency setting (five trials) Participants drank an average of 306 grams of alcohol (over 30 standard drinks) per week on entry to the trial Over 7000 participants with a mean age of 43 years were randomised to receive a brief intervention or a control intervention, including assessment only After one year or more, people who received the brief intervention drank less alcohol than people in the control group (average difference 38 grams/week, range 23 to 54 grams) For men (some 70% of participants), the benefit of brief intervention was a difference of 57 grams/week, range 25 to 89 grams (six trials) The benefit was not clear for women The benefits of brief intervention were similar in the normal clinical setting and in research settings with greater resources Longer counselling had little additional benefit

/pdf/effectiveness-of-brief-alcohol-interventions-in-primary-care-4v9jy63xfu.pdf

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a comprehensive and integrated approach to the delivery of early intervention and treatment services through universal screening for persons with substance use disorders and those at risk. This paper describes research on the components of SBIRT conducted during the past 25 years, including the development of screening tests, clinical trials of brief interventions and implementation research. Beginning in the 1980s, concerted efforts were made in the US and at the World Health Organization to provide an evidence base for alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary health care settings. With the development of reliable and accurate screening tests for alcohol, more than a hundred clinical trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care, emergency departments and trauma centers. With the accumulation of positive evidence, implementation research on alcohol SBI was begun in the 1990s, followed by trials of similar methods for other substances (e.g., illicit drugs, tobacco, prescription drugs) and by national demonstration programs in the US and other countries. The results of these efforts demonstrate the cumulative benefit of translational research on health care delivery systems and substance abuse policy. That SBIRT yields short-term improvements in individuals' health is irrefutable; long-term effects on population health have not yet been demonstrated, but simulation models suggest that the benefits could be substantial.

/pdf/screening-brief-intervention-and-referral-to-treatment-sbirt-1ft6hbj62u.pdf

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): Toward a Public Health Approach to the Management of Substance Abuse.

Brief interventions for alcohol use disorders have been the focus of considerable research. In this meta-analytic review, we considered studies comparing brief interventions with either control or extended treatment conditions. We calculated the effect sizes for multiple drinking-related outcomes at multiple follow-up points, and took into account the critical distinction between treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples. Most investigations fell into one of two types: those comparing brief interventions with control conditions in non-treatment-seeking samples (n = 34) and those comparing brief interventions with extended treatment in treatment-seeking samples (n = 20). For studies of the first type, small to medium aggregate effect sizes in favor of brief interventions emerged across different follow-up points. At follow-up after > 3-6 months, the effect for brief interventions compared to control conditions was significantly larger when individuals with more severe alcohol problems were excluded. For studies of the second type, the effect sizes were largely not significantly different from zero. This review summarizes additional positive evidence for brief interventions compared to control conditions typically delivered by health-care professionals to non-treatment-seeking samples. The results concur with previous reviews that found little difference between brief and extended treatment conditions. Because the evidence regarding brief interventions comes from different types of investigation with different samples, generalizations should be restricted to the populations, treatment characteristics and contexts represented in those studies.

Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta‐analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment‐seeking and non‐treatment‐seeking populations

Background: This article provides a historical overview of the assessment of outcome variables in alcohol treatment studies that were first published between 1968 and 1998. The review focuses on changes over time in (1) the number of outcome variables and the number of different types of outcome variables assessed, (2) the likelihood of assessing specific types of outcome variables, (3) the methods used to assess outcome variables, and (4) the status of outcome assessment in more recent studies first published between 1990 and 1998. Methods: Reports of 357 alcohol treatment trials with two or more treatment/control groups were coded with respect to the number and types of outcome variables assessed, sources of outcome data, and methodological aspects of outcome assessment. Results: Although the number of outcome variables assessed in studies, on average, did not increase significantly over time, the number of different types of outcome variables did increase. An expected decrease in the assessment of categorical abstinence was not found, but another categorical variable, global ratings of drinking improvement, did decrease over time. More recent studies were more likely to assess such continuous variables as time abstinent, alcohol consumption, time drinking, dependence symptoms, and drinking-related problems. Physiological markers of drinking/alcohol misuse also were assessed more frequently in later years. Some aspects of outcome assessment methods exhibited improvement over time; validity data were more likely to be provided or cited, and self-reports of drinking behaviors were more likely to be corroborated in studies first published in more recent years. However, the percentages of studies that provided/cited reliability data for outcome measures, indicated that follow-up data collectors were not affiliated with treatment and were unaware of respondents' treatment conditions, and reported that respondents were alcohol-free at follow-up did not rise significantly over time. Conclusions: Although the methods of outcome assessment improved between 1968 and 1998, much room for improvement remains.

Carolyn E. Swearingen

Papers

Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta‐analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment‐seeking and non‐treatment‐seeking populations

Outcome Variables and Their Assessment in Alcohol Treatment Studies: 1968‐1998

Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1970-1998. An expanded look at the nature of the research.