↓ Skip to main content

Psychosocial interventions for benzodiazepine harmful use, abuse or dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
472 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychosocial interventions for benzodiazepine harmful use, abuse or dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009652.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine D Darker, Brion P Sweeney, Joe M Barry, Michael F Farrell, Erica Donnelly-Swift

Abstract

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) have a sedative and hypnotic effect upon people. Short term use can be beneficial but long term BZD use is common, with several risks in addition to the potential for dependence in both opiate and non-opiate dependent patients. To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for treating BZD harmful use, abuse or dependence compared to pharmacological interventions, no intervention, placebo or a different psychosocial intervention on reducing the use of BZDs in opiate dependent and non-opiate dependent groups. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL- the Cochrane Library issue 12, 2014) which includes the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialized Register; PubMed (from 1966 to December 2014); EMBASE (from 1988 to December 2014); CINAHL Cumulative Index to Nursing and AlliedHealth Literature (1982 to September 2013); PsychINFO (1872 to December 2014); ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre, (January 1966 to September 2013); All EBM Reviews (1991 to September 2013, Ovid Interface); AMED (Allied & Alternative Medicine) 1985 to September 2013); ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (1960 to September 2013); LILACS (January 1982 to September 2013);Web of Science (1900 to December 2014);Electronic Grey Literature Databases: Dissertation Abstract; Index to Theses. Randomised controlled trials examining the use of a psychosocial intervention to treat BZDs versus pharmacological interventions,no intervention, placebo or a different psychosocial intervention on reducing the use of BZDs in opiate dependent and non-opiate dependent groups. We used the standard methodological procedures outlined in Cochrane Guidelines. Twenty-five studies including 1666 people met the inclusion criteria. The studies tested many different psychosocial interventions including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (some studies with taper, other studies with no taper), motivational interviewing (MI),letters to patients advising them to reduce or quit BZD use, relaxation studies, counselling delivered electronically and advice provided by a general practitioner (GP). Based on the data obtained, we performed two meta-analyses in this Cochrane review: one assessing the effectiveness of CBT plus taper versus taper only (575 participants), and one assessing MI versus treatment as usual (TAU) (80 participants).There was moderate quality of evidence that CBT plus taper was more likely to result in successful discontinuation of BZDs within four weeks post treatment compared to taper only (Risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.86; nine trials, 423 participants) and moderate quality of evidence at three month follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.98) in favour of CBT (taper)for 575 participants. The effects were less certain at 6, 11, 12, 15 and 24 months follow-up. The effect of CBT on reducing BZDs by> 50% was uncertain for all time points examined due to the low quality evidence. There was very low quality evidence for the effect on drop-outs at any of the time intervals; post-treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66), three month follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI0.16 to 17.98) and six month follow-up (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.88).Based on the very low quality of evidence available, the effect of MI versus TAU for all the time intervals is unclear; post treatment(RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 125.35; two trials, 34 participants), at three month follow-up (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.53 to 22.45; four trials,80 participants), six month follow-up (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.89) and 12 month follow-up (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.47).There was very low quality of evidence to determine the effect of MI on reducing BZDs by > 50% at three month follow-up (RR 1.52,95% CI 0.60 to 3.83) and 12 month follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). The effects on drop-outs from treatment at any of e time intervals between the two groups were uncertain due to the wide CIs; post-treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 7.10), three month follow-up (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.28), six month follow-up (RR 8.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 124.53) and 12 month follow-up(RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.71).The following interventions reduced BZD use - tailored GP letter versus generic GP letter at 12 month follow-up (RR 1.70, 95%CI 1.07 to 2.70; one trial, 322 participants), standardised interview versus TAU at six month follow-up (RR 13.11, 95% CI 3.25 to 52.83; one trial, 139 participants) and 12 month follow-up (RR 4.97, 95% CI 2.23 to 11.11), and relaxation versus TAU at three month follow-up (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.94).There was insufficient supporting evidence for the remaining interventions.We performed a 'Risk of bias' assessment on all included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence as high quality for random sequence generation, attrition bias and reporting bias; moderate quality for allocation concealment, performance bias for objective outcomes, and detection bias for objective outcomes; and low quality for performance bias for subjective outcomes and detection bias for subjective outcomes. Few studies had manualised sessions or independent tests of treatment fidelity; most follow-up periods were less than 12 months.Based on decisions made during the implementation of protocol methods to present a manageable summary of the evidence we did not collect data on quality of life, self-harm or adverse events. CBT plus taper is effective in the short term (three month time period) in reducing BZD use. However, this is not sustained at six months and subsequently. Currently there is insufficient evidence to support the use of MI to reduce BZD use. There is emerging evidence to suggest that a tailored GP letter versus a generic GP letter, a standardised interview versus TAU, and relaxation versus TAU could be effective for BZD reduction. There is currently insufficient evidence for other approaches to reduce BZD use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 472 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 468 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 21%
Researcher 58 12%
Student > Bachelor 56 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 7%
Other 89 19%
Unknown 83 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 157 33%
Psychology 68 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 28 6%
Social Sciences 26 6%
Other 44 9%
Unknown 98 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#561,972
of 17,438,794 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,374
of 11,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,836
of 238,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,438,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.