Therapeutic Songwriting for Perceived Stigma and Perceived Social Support in Adults with Substance Use Disorder: A Cluster-Randomized Effectiveness Study

Interventions to reduce self-stigma in people who use drugs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Substance use stigma is a key barrier to treatment and harm reduction engagement among people who use drugs (PWUD). Previous systematic reviews have focused on interventions to reduce stigma in healthcare providers and the public; less is known about interventions to address self-stigma among PWUD. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the evidence for substance use self-stigma reduction interventions.

METHODS

We reviewed English-language studies published between 2011 and 2023 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO #CRD42022321305). We searched seven bibliographic databases (PubMed; SCOPUS; APA PsycInfo; CINAHL; Social Work Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses). This review included studies if 1) they evaluated the effectiveness of a psychosocial intervention, 2) participants were PWUD, 3) authors reported self-stigma as a primary outcome, 4) the study design was experimental or quasi-experimental. We reviewed, interpreted and reported intervention characteristics and effectiveness using narrative synthesis. We assessed study quality with the Downs & Black checklist.

RESULTS

Among 1195 screened studies, 15 met the inclusion criteria (N = 2280 PWUD). We categorized the interventions according to three approaches: psychotherapeutic (n = 8), psychoeducational (n = 5), and multimodal (n = 2). Most interventions were delivered in clinical settings (n = 11) and in a group format (n = 13). Study quality was fair-to-good and included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six quasi-experiments. Measurement heterogeneity was high, with 11 different stigma-related scales used across the 15 studies. Eleven studies showed significant favorable effects in at least one stigma measure. Six of these demonstrated positive effects in all stigma measures. Evidence was mixed for all three intervention categories; however, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, a form of group psychotherapy, demonstrated effectiveness in four of five RCTs incorporating this approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is promising evidence for the effectiveness of substance use self-stigma interventions, although more studies are needed to determine which approaches are most effective. Consistent conceptualization and measurement of self-stigma across studies will improve comparability in future intervention trials. Current offerings are largely limited to clinical settings and group-based formats; self-help interventions, available for other stigmatized conditions, could be developed to serve the majority of PWUD not engaged in treatment.

Effectiveness of Interventions in Reducing Substance-Related Stigma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose of this study was to undertake a quantitative analysis to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed in reducing different types of stigma (self-stigma, social stigma, and structural stigma) for the substance use. This study followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guideline. This study followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guideline. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE. These electronic databases were searched research published in English from date of their inception to July 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions on stigma associated with substance use were included. Studies should include at least one stigma outcome involving self-stigma, social stigma, or structural stigmatization. Ten randomized controlled studies were included. The overall Hedges'g for the interventions' impact on reducing stigma was 0.301, 95%CI = [-0.154- 0.755], p = 0.195, that there was no statistically significant difference. However, the meta-analysis showed that interventions had no significant impact on self-stigma [0.682, 95% CI=(-0.015-1.380), p = 0.055] and social stigma [0.198, 95% CI=(-1.271-0.876), p = 0.718] but had a small but significant impact in favor of the experimental group on reducing structural stigma [0.360 (95% CI= 0.156-0.564), p = 0.00]. According to subgroup analyses, there was no difference in the effects of stigma according to the type of intervention, the number of sessions, or the type of group. The interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use are promising. It seems to have a small but significant positive impact on structural stigma.

Music therapy for people with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder (SUD) is the continued use of one or more psychoactive substances, including alcohol, despite negative effects on health, functioning, and social relations. Problematic drug use has increased by 10% globally since 2013, and harmful use of alcohol is associated with 5.3% of all deaths. Direct effects of music therapy (MT) on problematic substance use are not known, but it may be helpful in alleviating associated psychological symptoms and decreasing substance craving.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of music therapy (MT) in addition to standard care versus standard care alone, or to standard care plus an active control intervention, on psychological symptoms, substance craving, motivation for treatment, and motivation to stay clean/sober.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 1 February 2021): the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); eight other databases, and two trials registries. We handsearched reference lists of all retrieved studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing MT plus standard care to standard care alone, or MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care for people with SUD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials involving 1984 people. We found moderate-certainty evidence of a medium effect favouring MT plus standard care over standard care alone for substance craving (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.10; 3 studies, 254 participants), with significant subgroup differences indicating greater reduction in craving for MT intervention lasting one to three months; and small-to-medium effect favouring MT for motivation for treatment/change (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61; 5 studies, 408 participants). We found no clear evidence of a beneficial effect on depression (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.07; 3 studies, 100 participants), or motivation to stay sober/clean (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.47; 3 studies, 269 participants), though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result. There was no evidence of beneficial effect on anxiety (mean difference (MD) -0.17, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.05; 1 study, 60 participants), though we are uncertain about the result. There was no meaningful effect for retention in treatment for participants receiving MT plus standard care as compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% 0.93 to 1.05; 6 studies, 199 participants). There was a moderate effect on motivation for treatment/change when comparing MT plus standard care to another active intervention plus standard care (SMD 0.46, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.93; 5 studies, 411 participants), and certainty in the result was moderate. We found no clear evidence of an effect of MT on motivation to stay sober/clean when compared to active intervention, though effect sizes ranged from large favourable effect to no effect, and we are uncertain about the result (MD 0.34, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.78; 3 studies, 258 participants). There was no clear evidence of effect on substance craving (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.48; 3 studies, 232 participants), depression (MD -1.49, 95% CI -4.98 to 2.00; 1 study, 110 participants), or substance use (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 1 study, 140 participants) at one-month follow-up when comparing MT plus standard care to active intervention plus standard care. There were no data on adverse effects. Unclear risk of selection bias applied to most studies due to incomplete description of processes of randomisation and allocation concealment. All studies were at unclear risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors for subjective outcomes (mostly self-report). We judged that bias arising from such lack of blinding would not differ between groups. Similarly, it is not possible to blind participants and providers to MT. We consider knowledge of receiving this type of therapy as part of the therapeutic effect itself, and thus all studies were at low risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes.  We downgraded all outcomes one level for imprecision due to optimal information size not being met, and two levels for outcomes with very low sample size.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from this review suggest that MT as 'add on' treatment to standard care can lead to moderate reductions in substance craving and can increase motivation for treatment/change for people with SUDs receiving treatment in detoxification and short-term rehabilitation settings. Greater reduction in craving is associated with MT lasting longer than a single session. We have moderate-to-low confidence in our findings as the included studies were downgraded in certainty due to imprecision, and most included studies were conducted by the same researcher in the same detoxification unit, which considerably impacts the transferability of findings.