Effective behaviour change techniques for family and close friends: A systematic review and meta-analysis across the addictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to determine whether the use of specific behaviour change technique (BCT) groups are associated with greater effectiveness for psychosocial interventions delivered to family and close friends (FCFs) impacted by addiction. A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature published until August 2021 identified 32 studies in 38 articles. An established BCT taxonomy (93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups) was adapted (inclusion of seven additional BCT groups) and applied to 57 interventions. The meta-analyses indicated that some, but not all, FCF outcomes were improved by the exclusion of BCTs within several groups (Reward and Threat, Scheduled Consequences, Confrontation of the Addicted Person to Engage in Treatment, and Goals and Planning) and inclusion of BCTs within the Restoring a Balanced Lifestyle group. Addicted person outcomes were improved by the inclusion of some BCTs within several groups (Repetition and Substitution, Reward and Threat, Scheduled Consequences, and Restoring a Balanced Lifestyle). Relationship functioning outcomes were improved by the inclusion of BCTs within the Confrontation of the Addicted Person to Engage in Treatment group. Future research involving the development and evaluation of numerous interventions or comprehensive multi-component interventions that can address the various needs of FCFs, without counteracting them, is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".