Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Enhanced Outreach Counseling versus Brief Standard Referral Protocol, Outcome 1 Patients not re‐enrolled in drug treatment program after four weeks.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Enhanced Outreach Counseling versus Brief Standard Referral Protocol, Outcome 1 Patients not re‐enrolled in drug treatment program after four weeks.

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 1 Relapse to opiate use (urinanalysis).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 1 Relapse to opiate use (urinanalysis).

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 2 Relapse to heroin and cocaine use (self reported).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 2 Relapse to heroin and cocaine use (self reported).

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 3 Money spent on alcohol $.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 3 Money spent on alcohol $.

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 4 Unemployment at follow up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 4 Unemployment at follow up.

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 5 Drop outs.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources., Outcome 5 Drop outs.

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 1 Relapse to opiate and cocaine use (urinanalysis).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 1 Relapse to opiate and cocaine use (urinanalysis).

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 2 Abstinence for various time periods.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 2 Abstinence for various time periods.

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 3 Sessions attended in the first three months.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 3 Sessions attended in the first three months.

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 4 Drop outs.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control, Outcome 4 Drop outs.

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 1 Drop outs.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 1 Drop outs.

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 2 Mean Craving after lab based Cue Exposure (not able to use as a combination of all results).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 2 Mean Craving after lab based Cue Exposure (not able to use as a combination of all results).

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 3 Relapse to opiate use at 6 weeks follow up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 3 Relapse to opiate use at 6 weeks follow up.

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 4 Relapse to opiate use at 6 months follow up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control, Outcome 4 Relapse to opiate use at 6 months follow up.

Comparison 5 Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison, Outcome 1 Not Re‐entered into treatment at 6 months follow up.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison, Outcome 1 Not Re‐entered into treatment at 6 months follow up.

Comparison 5 Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison, Outcome 2 Not re‐entered back into treatment with attendance at 2 or more sessions.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison, Outcome 2 Not re‐entered back into treatment with attendance at 2 or more sessions.

Comparison 1. Enhanced Outreach Counseling versus Brief Standard Referral Protocol

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Patients not re‐enrolled in drug treatment program after four weeks Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All patients

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.14, 0.52]

1.2 HIV+ patients

1

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 1.89]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Enhanced Outreach Counseling versus Brief Standard Referral Protocol
Comparison 2. Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources.

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Relapse to opiate use (urinanalysis) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 one month

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.34, 0.87]

1.2 three months

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.62, 1.19]

2 Relapse to heroin and cocaine use (self reported) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 At discharge

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.19, 0.97]

2.2 At one week

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.18, 0.70]

2.3 At one month

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.29, 0.77]

3 Money spent on alcohol $ Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4 Unemployment at follow up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 At one month

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.56, 0.98]

4.2 At three months

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.53, 1.10]

5 Drop outs Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 1 month

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.29, 0.77]

5.2 3 months

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.77, 1.26]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Reinforcement‐based intensive outpatient treatment (RBT) versus standard commuinty treatment resources.
Comparison 3. Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Relapse to opiate and cocaine use (urinanalysis) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Opate and cocaine free urines submitted during the study

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐7.24, 3.04]

1.2 Longest duration of abstinence in days

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.70 [‐16.20, 6.80]

1.3 Mean longest duration of abstinence (missing urines included as positives)

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐12.77, 4.77]

2 Abstinence for various time periods Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 1 week

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.23, 1.09]

2.2 2 weeks

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.72, 1.56]

2.3 4 weeks

1

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.69, 1.09]

3 Sessions attended in the first three months Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Counseling Sessions

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐4.28, 4.68]

3.2 Research sessions

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.90 [‐7.82, 2.02]

4 Drop outs Show forest plot

1

9360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [1.00, 1.05]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Voucher Reinforcement versus no voucher control
Comparison 4. Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Drop outs Show forest plot

1

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.63 [0.86, 3.07]

1.1 Drug Dependence Unit

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.58 [0.75, 3.31]

1.2 Behavioural/General ward

1

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.78 [0.52, 6.04]

2 Mean Craving after lab based Cue Exposure (not able to use as a combination of all results) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3 Relapse to opiate use at 6 weeks follow up Show forest plot

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.34, 1.48]

3.1 Drug dependence Unit at 6 weeks follow up

1

26

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.32, 2.71]

3.2 Behavioural/General Ward at 6 weeks follow up

1

13

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.21, 1.54]

4 Relapse to opiate use at 6 months follow up Show forest plot

1

35

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.29, 3.30]

4.1 DDU

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.24, 5.58]

4.2 BGW

1

13

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.11, 5.18]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Post‐withdrawal cue exposure versus control
Comparison 5. Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Not Re‐entered into treatment at 6 months follow up Show forest plot

1

175

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.54, 1.07]

2 Not re‐entered back into treatment with attendance at 2 or more sessions Show forest plot

1

175

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.38, 0.82]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Alternative Program for MMTP Drop‐outs versus control comparison