Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones psicosociales para mujeres embarazadas en programas ambulatorios de tratamiento de drogas ilegales en comparación con otras intervenciones

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006037.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 02 April 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Mishka Terplan

    Correspondence to: Behavioral Health System Baltimore, Baltimore, USA

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Shaalini Ramanadhan

    University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA

  • Abigail Locke

    School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

  • Nyaradzo Longinaker

    Epidemiology and Human Genetics Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA

  • Steve Lui

    School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

Contributions of authors

All review authors screened the abstracts of all identified articles. Review authors independently assessed all relevant studies for inclusion. We resolved any conflicts by consensus.

Declarations of interest

Mishka Terplan declares no known conflicts of interest. Shaalini Ramanadhan declares no known conflicts of interest. Abigail Locke declares no known conflicts of interest. Nyaradzo Longinaker declares no known conflicts of interest. Steve Lui declares no known conflicts of interest.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Apr 02

Psychosocial interventions for pregnant women in outpatient illicit drug treatment programs compared to other interventions

Review

Mishka Terplan, Shaalini Ramanadhan, Abigail Locke, Nyaradzo Longinaker, Steve Lui

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006037.pub3

2007 Oct 17

Psychosocial interventions for pregnant women in outpatient illicit drug treatment programs compared to other interventions

Review

Mishka Terplan, Steve Lui

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006037.pub2

2006 Apr 19

Psychosocial interventions for pregnant women in outpatient illicit drug treatment programs

Protocol

Mishka Terplan, David A Grimes, Steve Lui

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006037

Differences between protocol and review

None

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neonatal outcomes any psychosocial intervention vs. control, outcome: 1.5 Mean days hospitalized after delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Neonatal outcomes any psychosocial intervention vs. control, outcome: 1.5 Mean days hospitalized after delivery.

Forest plot of comparison: 2 CM vs. control, outcome: 3.1 Retention in treatment at the end of study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 2 CM vs. control, outcome: 3.1 Retention in treatment at the end of study.

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation).

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive neonatal toxicology at delivery (any drug).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive neonatal toxicology at delivery (any drug).

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 3 Low birth weight (< 2500 g).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 3 Low birth weight (< 2500 g).

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 4 Days hospitalized after delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes, Outcome 4 Days hospitalized after delivery.

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine at 1 month+.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine at 1 month+.

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Positive urine at delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Positive urine at delivery.

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Retention at treatment completion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Retention at treatment completion.

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Short term treatment retention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Short term treatment retention.

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 6 Retention in treatment at delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 6 Retention in treatment at delivery.

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine at delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine at delivery.

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Retention at treatment completion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Retention at treatment completion.

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Short term treatment retention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Short term treatment retention.

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Retention at delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 CM vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Retention at delivery.

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment).

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine drug test at three months (follow‐up).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 2 Positive urine drug test at three months (follow‐up).

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Positive urine at delivery.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 3 Positive urine at delivery.

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Retention at treatment completion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 4 Retention at treatment completion.

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Short term treatment retention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes, Outcome 5 Short term treatment retention.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings table 1

Outcomes

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Patients: Pregnant women enrolled in illicit drug treatment programs for any treatment of substance abuse or dependence of any drug

Settings: Outpatient treatment facilities

Intervention: Psychosocial interventions of any kind (including Contingency Management methods and Motivational Interviewing based techniques) alone or given in addition to usual care

Comparison: Comprehensive usual care such as methadone maintenance, counselling, prenatal care (PNC), STD counselling and testing, transportation, and/or childcare

Preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation)

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.51)

264 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate 1

Low birth weight (< 2500 g)

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.43)

160 (1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Days hospitalized after delivery

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

MD ‐1.27 (95% CI ‐2.52 to ‐0.03)

103 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate 2

Retention at treatment completion

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.06)

743 (9 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low 3

Short term treatment retention

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.10)

514 (6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low 4

Positive urine at delivery

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.52 to 2.65)

217 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕

high

Positive urine drug test (end of treatment)

(Any psychosocial intervention vs. control)

RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.73)

367 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate 5

Retention at treatment completion

(CM vs. control)

RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.16)

388 (6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low 6

Retention at treatment completion

(MIB interventions vs. control)

RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.06)

355 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low 7

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; CM: contingency management; MIB: motivational interviewing based.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Downgraded by one due to possible selection bias in one of the three included studies.

2 Downgraded by one due to possible attrition bias associated with one of the two studies.

3 Downgraded by two due to possible selection bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in majority of the included studies (all but two).

4 Downgraded by two due to possible selection bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in majority of the included studies (all but two).

5 Downgraded by one due to possible selection bias associated with one of the three studies.

6 Downgraded by two due to possible selection bias associated with four of the included studies.

7 Downgraded by two due to possible selection bias associated with two of the included studies.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings table 1
Comparison 1. Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Preterm birth (< 37 weeks gestation) Show forest plot

3

264

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.34, 1.51]

2 Positive neonatal toxicology at delivery (any drug) Show forest plot

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.91 [0.86, 4.24]

3 Low birth weight (< 2500 g) Show forest plot

1

160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.36, 1.43]

4 Days hospitalized after delivery Show forest plot

2

103

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.27 [‐2.52, ‐0.03]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: neonatal outcomes
Comparison 2. Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment) Show forest plot

3

367

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.75, 1.73]

2 Positive urine at 1 month+ Show forest plot

1

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.55, 2.31]

3 Positive urine at delivery Show forest plot

2

217

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.52, 2.65]

4 Retention at treatment completion Show forest plot

9

743

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.93, 1.06]

5 Short term treatment retention Show forest plot

6

514

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.90, 1.10]

6 Retention in treatment at delivery Show forest plot

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.50, 1.88]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Any psychosocial intervention vs. control: maternal outcomes
Comparison 3. CM vs. control: maternal outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment) Show forest plot

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.91 [0.86, 4.24]

2 Positive urine at delivery Show forest plot

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.91 [0.86, 4.24]

3 Retention at treatment completion Show forest plot

6

388

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.92, 1.16]

4 Short term treatment retention Show forest plot

2

88

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.70, 1.73]

5 Retention at delivery Show forest plot

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.50, 1.88]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. CM vs. control: maternal outcomes
Comparison 4. MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Positive urine drug test (end of treatment) Show forest plot

2

278

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.63, 1.48]

2 Positive urine drug test at three months (follow‐up) Show forest plot

1

159

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.55, 2.31]

3 Positive urine at delivery Show forest plot

1

128

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.57, 1.24]

4 Retention at treatment completion Show forest plot

3

355

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.89, 1.06]

5 Short term treatment retention Show forest plot

3

334

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.88, 1.12]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. MIB vs. control: maternal outcomes