Research Methodology Gaps

The gap

Consensus across the literature

Supporting evidence — 2 representative gaps

• How effective are brief motivational interventions for reducing alcohol and drug use? A review of systematic reviews (2026) · doi

  A notable challenge of this review was identifying a consis- tent and operational definition of what constitutes Motiva- tional Interviewing (MI) and Brief Motivational Intervention (BMI) in the existing literature. In our analysis, we adhered to the terminology used by the authors of the included reviews (e.g., Barata et al., 2017; Joseph & Basu, 2017; Murphy et al., 2022). However, we recognize that the terms MI and BMI are not always used consistently, either across reviews or within the primary studies they summarize. This variability in terminology may contribute to differences in how the interventions are implemented and evaluated, poten- tially affecting the comparability of results. Another limitation concerns the broad heterogeneity of interventions grouped under the BMI label. Although BMI is based on the principles of MI, it varies widely in terms of both the number and duration of sessions. For example, while several reviews describe BMIs as consisting of four or fewer sessions lasting under 30 min (Joseph & Basu, 2017; Young et al., 2014), some studies included in these reviews report sessions lasting up to 60 min. This lack of standardization complicates efforts to draw firm conclu- sions about what constitutes an effective BMI and raises important questions about the minimum dose necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes, an area that would benefit from further research. A further consideration is the search strategy used in this review. In order to preserve precision and avoid increasing ambiguity in an already complex field, we chose to use spe- cific terms such as “motivational interviewing” and “brief motivational intervention”, rather than broader keywords like “motivation” or “enhancement”. While this may have limited the scope of potentially relevant studies, it helped maintain a clear focus and reduced the risk of including studies that did not align with our review’s objectives. An important methodological concern, highlighted by the AMSTAR assessment, is the limited reporting of publication bias in the included reviews. Only two of the twelve reviews Current Psychology (2026) 45:693 1 3explicitly addressed this issue. As noted in the Cochrane Handbook, failing to assess the risk of publication bias can undermine the reliability of synthesized findings, as studies with positive results are more likely to be published than those with null or negative outcomes. The lack of such assessment means that the effectiveness of brief interventions reported in these reviews could be overestimated, although the extent of this potential bias is difficult to determine without further data. Another gap worth noting is the scarcity of cost- effectiveness analyses, particularly for middle-income countries. While some studies suggest that brief interventions can be cost-ef

  Keywords: reviews brief interventions review motivational used included terms sessions further bias constitutes interviewing intervention terminology
• Risk factors for scabies in school children: a systematic review (2022) · doi

  Limited information on the quality assessment of included studies and potential risk of bias across the reviewed studies.

  Keywords: limited information quality assessment included potential risk bias across reviewed