Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jan 13;10(2):264.
doi: 10.3390/jcm10020264.

Success Rates of Monitoring for Healthcare Professionals with a Substance Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis

Pauline M Geuijen  1   2 , Sophie J M van den Broek  1 , Boukje A G Dijkstra  2   3   4 , Joanneke M Kuppens  5 , Hein A de Haan  2   6 , Cornelis A J de Jong  2   4 , Aart H Schene  1 , Femke Atsma  7 , Arnt F A Schellekens  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Success Rates of Monitoring for Healthcare Professionals with a Substance Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis

Pauline M Geuijen et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

In the past decades, monitoring programs have been developed for healthcare professionals with substance use disorders. We aimed to explore estimates of abstinence and work retention rates after participation in such monitoring programs. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Twenty-nine observational studies reporting on success rates (abstinence and work retention) of monitoring for healthcare professionals with a substance use disorder were included in the meta-analysis. Quality-effects models calculated pooled success rates and corresponding 95%-Confidence Intervals (CI), with subgroup analyses on monitoring elements and patient characteristics. Pooled success rates were 72% for abstinence (95%-CI = 63-80%) and 77% for work retention (95%-CI = 61-90%). Heterogeneity across studies was partly explained by the starting moment of monitoring, showing higher abstinence rates for studies that started monitoring after treatment completion (79%; 95%-CI = 72-85%) compared to studies that started monitoring with treatment initiation (61%; 95%-CI = 50-72%). About three-quarters of healthcare professionals with substance use disorders participating in monitoring programs are abstinent during follow-up and working at the end of the follow-up period. Due to selection and publication bias, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of monitoring for healthcare professionals with SUD.

Keywords: abstinence; healthcare professional; meta-analysis; monitoring; substance use disorder; work retention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure A1
Figure A1
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on type of monitoring.
Figure A2
Figure A2
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on duration of follow-up.
Figure A3
Figure A3
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on gender.
Figure A4
Figure A4
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on type of healthcare professional.
Figure A5
Figure A5
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on type of substance use.
Figure A6
Figure A6
Doi plot analysis and Luis Furuya-Kanamori asymmetry (LFK) index of publication bias for the pooled abstinence rate.
Figure A7
Figure A7
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on type of monitoring.
Figure A8
Figure A8
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on duration of follow-up.
Figure A9
Figure A9
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on gender.
Figure A10
Figure A10
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on type of healthcare professional.
Figure A11
Figure A11
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on type of substance use.
Figure A12
Figure A12
Doi plot analysis and Luis Furuya-Kanamori asymmetry (LFK) index of publication bias for the pooled work retention rate.
Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of the selection of studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the pooled abstinence rate—subgroup analysis based on starting moment of monitoring.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of the pooled work retention rate—subgroup analysis based on starting moment of monitoring.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kunyk D. Substance use disorders among registered nurses: Prevalence, risks and perceptions in a disciplinary jurisdiction. J. Nurs. Manag. 2015;23:54–64. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12081. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wallace J.E., Lemaire J.B., Ghali W.A. Physician wellness: A missing quality indicator. Lancet. 2009;374:1714–1721. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61424-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oreskovich M.R., Shanafelt T., Dyrbye L.N., Tan L., Sotile W., Satele D. The prevalence of substance use disorders in American physicians. Am. J. Addict. 2015;24:30–38. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12173. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hughes P.H., Storr C., Baldwin D.C., Williams K.M., Conard S., Sheehan D. Patterns of substance use in the medical profession. Med. J. 1992;41:311–314. - PubMed
    1. Trinkoff A.M., Eaton W.W., Anthony J.C. The prevalence of substance abuse among registered nurses. Nurs. Res. 1991;40:172–175. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199105000-00011. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources