1 / 15

Meta-Analysis Critique

Meta-Analysis Critique. The Efficacy of Relapse Prevention on Substance Use Disorders Ashlee Carter 11/7/05. Reference. Irvin, J.E., Bowers, C.A., Dunn, M.E., & Wang, M.C. (1999). Efficacy of Relapse Prevention: A Meta-Analytic Review.

yetta-leon
Download Presentation

Meta-Analysis Critique

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meta-Analysis Critique The Efficacy of Relapse Prevention on Substance Use Disorders Ashlee Carter 11/7/05

  2. Reference • Irvin, J.E., Bowers, C.A., Dunn, M.E., & Wang, M.C. (1999). Efficacy of Relapse Prevention: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 563-570.

  3. Research Domain • Clinical Psychology • Therapeutic Interventions • Substance Use Disorders • Alcohol Use • Cocaine Use • Smoking (Tobacco) • Polysubstance Use

  4. Central Questions • What is the effect of RP on substance use behavior • What is the effect of RP on overall psychosocial adjustment?

  5. Potential Moderating Variables • Class of substance use disorder • Treatment modality • Setting of treatment • Adjunctive use of medication • Outcome measures • Comparative efficacy of RP • Length of posttreatment follow-up

  6. Methods • Study identification: • Computerized databases • Reference lists • Contact prominent researchers to request unpublished data • Inclusion/Exclusion criteria • Result: 26 studies, 70 hypothesis tests, 9,504 participants

  7. Methods • Main effect sizes converted to r • Mini meta-analysis within studies • r transformed to Fisher’s z • Weighted average z score calculated • z converted back to r • Aggregate r across studies • 95% CI calculated • Weighted average r

  8. Results • Overall treatment effect of RP interventions for alcohol use disorders, substance use disorders, and smoking is r = .14 (95% CI = .10 – .17, n = 22). • Overall treatment effect of RP interventions on improving psychosocial adjustment is r = .48 (95% CI = .42 to .53, n = 10).

  9. Results: File drawer bias? • Fail-safe n = 388 (p = 0.05) • Number of undiscovered studies averaging no effect of RP interventions that would be required to reduce the obtained relationship to zero • Conclusion: The main effect is tolerant to future undiscovered null results

  10. Results: Moderator Analysis • Contrast analyses • Z scores • Problems: • Small sample sizes • Differences in effect sizes due to class of substance use disorder • Medication varies

  11. Results: Moderating Variables • 1) More effective in treating alcohol and polysubstance use than smoking or cocaine use. • 2) Equally effective in group and individual formats. • 3) Equally effective in outpatient and inpatient formats. • 4) More effective with adjunctive medication than without. • 5) Reported more effective in studies that used self-report versus biochemically validated self-report measures.

  12. Results: Moderating Variables • 6) Effective when evaluated with pretest-posttest designs and when compared to physician advice; only moderately effective when compared with psychoeducational groups or discussion controls. • 7) Treatment effects were largest when outcomes were assessed immediately following treatment and tended to become smaller as the length of follow-up increased.

  13. Conclusions: Done well • Large sample of studies • Appropriate methods • Weighted averaged r • Mini meta-analysis in z • Methods clearly outlined • Formulas included • Table • Original statistic included • Coding for moderator clearly described

  14. Conclusions: Done well • Dot Plot • General progression of effect size • No gaps Published and unpublished studies • File drawer bias addressed • Statistics consistently presented • Limitations admitted

  15. Conclusions: Questionable? • Study identification method • Publication bias? • Study rigor? • Moderator analyses • Small sample sizes • Adjustment of alpha levels? • Interpretable?

More Related