Web-based alcohol intervention for nightclub patrons: Opposite effects according to baseline alcohol use disorder classification

A systematic review on eHealth technology personalization approaches

Despite the widespread use of personalization of eHealth technologies, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding its application. This systematic review aims to bridge this gap by identifying and clustering different personalization approaches based on the type of variables used for user segmentation and the adaptations to the eHealth technology and examining the role of computational methods in the literature. From the 412 included reports, we identified 13 clusters of personalization approaches, such as behavior + channeling and environment + recommendations. Within these clusters, 10 computational methods were utilized to match segments with technology adaptations, such as classification-based methods and reinforcement learning. Several gaps were identified in the literature, such as the limited exploration of technology-related variables, the limited focus on user interaction reminders, and a frequent reliance on a single type of variable for personalization. Future research should explore leveraging technology-specific features to attain individualistic segmentation approaches.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

Telehealth interventions for substance use disorders in low- and- middle income countries: A scoping review

The increasing prevalence and magnitude of harmful effects of substance use disorders (SUDs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) make it imperative to embrace interventions which are acceptable, feasible, and effective in reducing this burden. Globally, the use of telehealth interventions is increasingly being explored as possible effective approaches in the management of SUDs. Using a scoping review of literature, this article summarizes and evaluates evidence for the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of telehealth interventions for SUDs in LMICs. Searches were conducted in five bibliographic databases: PubMed, Psych INFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Professionals and the Cochrane database of systematic review. Studies from LMICs which described a telehealth modality, identified at least one psychoactive substance use among participants, and methods that either compared outcomes using pre- and post-intervention data, treatment versus comparison groups, post-intervention data, behavioral or health outcome, and outcome of either acceptability, feasibility, and/or effectiveness were included. Data is presented in a narrative summary using charts, graphs, and tables. The search produced 39 articles across 14 countries which fulfilled our eligibility criteria over a period of 10 years (2010 to 2020). Research on this topic increased remarkably in the latter five years with the highest number of studies in 2019. The identified studies were heterogeneous in their methods and various telecommunication modalities were used to evaluate substance use disorder, with cigarette smoking as the most assessed. Most studies used quantitative methods. The highest number of included studies were from China and Brazil, and only two studies from Africa assessed telehealth interventions for SUDs. There has been an increasingly significant body of literature which evaluates telehealth interventions for SUDs in LMICs. Overall, telehealth interventions showed promising acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness for SUDs. This article identifies gaps and strengths and suggests directions for future research.

A systematic review and behaviour change technique analysis of remotely delivered alcohol and/or substance misuse interventions for adults

BACKGROUND

There has been a lack of systematic exploration of remotely delivered intervention content and their effectiveness for behaviour change outcomes. This review provides a synthesis of the behaviour change techniques (BCT) contained in remotely delivered alcohol and/or substance misuse approaches and their association with intervention promise.

METHODS

Searches in MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO (ProQuest), and the Cochrane Library, included studies reporting remote interventions focusing on alcohol and/or substance misuse among adults, with a primary behaviour change outcome (e.g., alcohol levels consumed). Assessment of risk of bias, study promise, and BCT coding was conducted. Synthesis focussed on the association of BCTs with intervention effectiveness using promise ratios.

RESULTS

Studies targeted alcohol misuse (52 studies) or substance misuse (10 studies), with predominantly randomised controlled trial designs and asynchronous digital approaches. For alcohol misuse studies, 16 were very promising, 17 were quite promising, and 13 were not promising. Of the 36 eligible BCTs, 28 showed potential promise, with seven of these only appearing in very or quite promising studies. Particularly promising BCTs were 'Avoidance/reducing exposure to cues for behaviour', 'Pros and cons' and 'Self-monitoring of behaviour'. For substance misuse studies, three were very promising and six were quite promising, with all 12 BCTs showing potential promise.

CONCLUSIONS

This review showed remotely delivered alcohol and substance misuse interventions can be effective and highlighted a range of BCTs that showed promise for improving services. However, concerns with risk of bias and the potential of promise ratios to inflate effectiveness warrant caution in interpreting the evidence.

Effectiveness of digital psychological interventions for mental health problems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the available evidence for digital psychological interventions in reducing mental health problems in LMICs.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English from database inception to March 9, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials investigating digital psychological interventions in individuals with mental health problems in LMICs. We extracted data on demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of the intervention, including the setting, digital delivery method, control group conditions, number of sessions, therapeutic orientation (eg, cognitive therapy or behaviour therapy), presence or absence of guidance, and length of follow-up, and statistical information to calculate effect sizes. If a study reported insufficient data to calculate effect sizes, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide data that could be aggregated. We did random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated the standardised mean difference in scores of digital psychological interventions versus control conditions (Hedges'g). Quality of evidence was assessed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was post-intervention mental health problems, as measured by self-reporting instruments or clinical interviews. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019137755.

FINDINGS

We identified 22 eligible studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies involved a total of 4104 participants (2351 who received a digital psychological intervention and 1753 who were in the control group), and mainly focused on young adults (mean age of the study population was 20-35 years) with depression or substance misuse. The results showed that digital psychological interventions are moderately effective when compared with control interventions (Hedges'g 0·60 [95% CI 0·45-0·75]; Hedges'g with treatment as usual subgroup for comparison 0·54 [0·35-0·73]). Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I²=74% [95% CI 60-83]). There was no evidence of publication bias, and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria was generally high.

INTERPRETATION

Digital psychological interventions, which have been mostly studied in individuals with depression and substance misuse, are superior to control conditions, including usual care, and are moderately effective in LMICs. However, the considerable heterogeneity observed in our analysis highlights the need for more studies to be done, with standardised implementation of digital psychological intervention programmes to improve their reproducibility and efficiency. Digital psychological interventions should be considered for regions where usual care for mental health problems is minimal or absent.

FUNDING

None.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Internet-Based Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Mental Disorders in Latin America: A Scoping Review

Background: There is a huge gap in the treatment of mental disorders in Latin America, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Given the sharp increase in Internet access and the rapid penetration of smartphones in the region, the use of Internet-based technologies might potentially contribute to overcoming this gap and to provide more widely distributed and low-cost mental health care in a variety of contexts. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the literature in order to systematically map the existing evidence on use of Internet-based interventions for prevention, treatment, and management of mental disorders across Latin American countries, as well as to identify existing gaps in knowledge. Six electronic databases were searched for published papers (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, SciELO, and CENTRAL). Results: After the eligibility assessment, we identified 22 Internet-based studies carried out in Latin America for prevention, treatment, education, or facilitating self-management of mental disorders. Included studies mainly targeted depression (n = 11), substance misuse (n = 6), anxiety (n = 3), and mental health literacy for education and health professionals (n = 2). Most studies were undertaken in Brazil (n = 6), Mexico (n = 5), and Chile (n = 4). Only 3 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 were pilot RCTs, and 15 were naturalistic, acceptability, or feasibility studies. The three RCTs identified showed disparate results, but overall, there are challenges to face. Better results are seen in the short-term (postintervention or after 3 months), but most studies do not explore outcomes for long enough (follow-up after 6 or 12 months). Most of the feasibility and pilot studies showed reasonably good acceptability for a wide range of strategies but difficulties to engage and retain participants for long enough or adhering to established protocols. Conclusion: This study shows that Internet-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of mental disorders are growing rapidly in Latin America, but there are few studies on effectiveness and cost effectiveness, making it difficult to provide the evidence needed to justify scaling up these interventions.