We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect on
substance use which was strongest at post-intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI
0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow-up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow-up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06
(95%CI-0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences betweenMI and treatment as usual for either follow-up post-intervention,
short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow-up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66).
For short follow-up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow-up.
There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes.
We included 59 studies with a total of 13,342 participants. Compared to no treatment control MI showed a significant effect onsubstance use which was strongest at post-intervention SMD 0.79, (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09) and weaker at short SMD 0.17 (95% CI0.09 to 0.26], and medium follow-up SMD 0.15 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.25]). For long follow-up, the effect was not significant SMD 0.06(95%CI-0.16 to 0.28). There were no significant differences betweenMI and treatment as usual for either follow-up post-intervention,short and medium follow up. MI did better than assessment and feedback for medium follow-up SMD 0.38 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.66).For short follow-up, there was no significant effect . For other active intervention there were no significant effects for either follow-up.There was not enough data to conclude about effects of MI on the secondary outcomes.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
