1
|
Vrijsen JN, Grafton B, Koster EHW, Lau J, Wittekind CE, Bar-Haim Y, Becker ES, Brotman MA, Joormann J, Lazarov A, MacLeod C, Manning V, Pettit JW, Rinck M, Salemink E, Woud ML, Hallion LS, Wiers RW. Towards implementation of cognitive bias modification in mental health care: State of the science, best practices, and ways forward. Behav Res Ther 2024; 179:104557. [PMID: 38797055 DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2024.104557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2024] [Revised: 04/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/06/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024]
Abstract
Cognitive bias modification (CBM) has evolved from an experimental method testing cognitive mechanisms of psychopathology to a promising tool for accessible digital mental health care. While we are still discovering the conditions under which clinically relevant effects occur, the dire need for accessible, effective, and low-cost mental health tools underscores the need for implementation where such tools are available. Providing our expert opinion as Association for Cognitive Bias Modification members, we first discuss the readiness of different CBM approaches for clinical implementation, then discuss key considerations with regard to implementation. Evidence is robust for approach bias modification as an adjunctive intervention for alcohol use disorders and interpretation bias modification as a stand-alone intervention for anxiety disorders. Theoretical predictions regarding the mechanisms by which bias and symptom change occur await further testing. We propose that CBM interventions with demonstrated efficacy should be provided to the targeted populations. To facilitate this, we set a research agenda based on implementation frameworks, which includes feasibility and acceptability testing, co-creation with end-users, and collaboration with industry partners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janna N Vrijsen
- Department of Psychiatry, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Depression Expertise Center, Pro Persona Mental Health Care, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Ben Grafton
- Centre for the Advancement of Research on Emotion, School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Ernst H W Koster
- Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - Jennifer Lau
- Youth Resilience Unit, Queen Mary University of London, UK
| | - Charlotte E Wittekind
- Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, LMU Munich, Germany
| | - Yair Bar-Haim
- School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel; School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
| | - Eni S Becker
- Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Melissa A Brotman
- Emotion and Development Branch, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jutta Joormann
- Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conneticut, USA
| | - Amit Lazarov
- School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
| | - Colin MacLeod
- Centre for the Advancement of Research on Emotion, School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Victoria Manning
- Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Turning Point, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeremy W Pettit
- Department of Psychology and Center for Children and Families, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Mike Rinck
- Emotion and Development Branch, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Elske Salemink
- Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | - Marcella L Woud
- Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Georg-Elias-Mueller-Institute of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | | | - Reinout W Wiers
- Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of Psychology, and Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Van Dessel P, Cummins J, Wiers RW. ABC-training as a new intervention for hazardous alcohol drinking: Two proof-of-principle randomized pilot studies. Addiction 2023; 118:2141-2155. [PMID: 37349262 DOI: 10.1111/add.16271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2023] [Indexed: 06/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS ABC-training is a new intervention to encourage health behavior change that targets the automatic activation of adaptive beliefs (i.e. automatic inferences). The aim of this proof-of-principle study was to test the effectiveness of web-based ABC-training to change outcome expectancies of alcohol drinking in a sample of hazardous drinkers. DESIGN One exploratory and one confirmatory experiment with two between-subject conditions (online ABC- and control-training) and assessments at baseline and 1 week later (after three sessions of training). SETTING Participants recruited on Prolific Academic completed the web-based study. PARTICIPANTS Adults with self-reported hazardous alcohol drinking (Experiment 1: 193 adults, United Kingdom, age mean = 46.7 years; Experiment 2: 282 adults, different nationalities, age mean = 38.3 years). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR ABC-training involved completing an online task that required choosing personally relevant alternative behaviors to drinking alcohol in personally relevant antecedent contexts to attain personally important outcomes. Comparator was control-training, in which participants selected both the alternative behaviors and alcohol drinking an equal number of times. Training was completed at baseline, after 3 days and after 1 week. MEASUREMENTS Primary outcome was change in automatic and self-reported (negative/positive) outcome expectancies of alcohol drinking from baseline to after 1 week. Secondary outcomes were change in weekly alcohol consumption, self-efficacy, craving and motivation (and approach-alcohol associations in Experiment 1). Moderators were baseline outcome scores, motivation, age and alcohol dependency. FINDINGS Findings of this study are as follows: stronger increase in negative outcome expectancies after ABC- than control-training (Experiment 1: self-report, 95% confidence interval of difference scores (CIdiff ) = [0.04, Inf]; automatic, CIdiff = [0.01, Inf]; Experiment 2: self-report, CIdiff = [0.16, Inf]; automatic, CIdiff = [0.002, Inf]). Stronger reduction in self-reported positive outcome expectancies after ABC- than control-training (Experiment 1: CIdiff = [-Inf, -0.01]; Experiment 2: CIdiff = [-Inf, -0.21]) but mixed findings on automatic positive outcome expectancies (Experiment 1: CIdiff = [-Inf, 0.02]; Experiment 2: CIdiff = [-Inf, -0.001]). CONCLUSIONS ABC-training may change outcome expectancies of alcohol consumption, but testing of clinically relevant effects in other samples is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pieter Van Dessel
- Learning and Implicit Processes (LIP) Lab, Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Jamie Cummins
- Learning and Implicit Processes (LIP) Lab, Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Reinout W Wiers
- Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Laboratory, Department of Psychology and Center for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wiers RW, Pan T, van Dessel P, Rinck M, Lindenmeyer J. Approach-Bias Retraining and Other Training Interventions as Add-On in the Treatment of AUD Patients. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2023. [PMID: 37221351 DOI: 10.1007/7854_2023_421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
In the past two decades, a variety of cognitive training interventions have been developed to help people overcome their addictive behaviors. Conceptually, it is important to distinguish between programs in which reactions to addiction-relevant cues are trained (varieties of cognitive bias modification, CBM) and programs in which general abilities are trained such as working memory or mindfulness. CBM was first developed to study the hypothesized causal role in mental disorders: by directly manipulating the bias, it was investigated to what extent this influenced disorder-relevant behavior. In these proof-of-principle studies, the bias was temporarily modified in volunteers, either temporarily increased or decreased, with corresponding effects on behavior (e.g., beer consumption), in case the bias was successfully manipulated. In subsequent clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), training (away from the substance vs. sham training) was added to clinical treatment. These studies have demonstrated that CBM, as added to treatment, reduces relapse with a small effect of about 10% (similar effect size as for medication, with the strongest evidence for approach-bias modification). This has not been found for general ability training (e.g., working memory training), although effects on other psychological functions have been found (e.g., impulsivity). Mindfulness also has been found to help people overcome addictions, and different from CBM, also as stand-alone intervention. Research on (neuro-)cognitive mechanisms underlying approach-bias modification has pointed to a new perspective in which automatic inferences rather than associations are influenced by training, which has led to the development of a new variety of training: ABC training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reinout W Wiers
- Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ting Pan
- Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter van Dessel
- Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mike Rinck
- Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Johannes Lindenmeyer
- Salus Klinik, Lindow, Germany
- Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Stein M, Soravia LM, Tschuemperlin RM, Batschelet HM, Jaeger J, Roesner S, Keller A, Gomez Penedo JM, Wiers RW, Moggi F. Alcohol-specific inhibition training in patients with alcohol use disorder: a multi-centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial examining drinking outcome and working mechanisms. Addiction 2023; 118:646-657. [PMID: 36468408 DOI: 10.1111/add.16104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
AIMS For the first time, to our knowledge, in a clinical sample with alcohol use disorder (AUD), this study compared the effects of two versions of alcohol-specific inhibition training (Alc-IT) on drinking outcomes and on experimental parameters assessing two possible working mechanisms: stimulus devaluation and inhibitory enhancement. DESIGN Multi-centre, double-blind, three-arm clinical RCT with 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up comparing standard Alc-IT, improved Alc-IT and an active control condition. SETTING Three specialized AUD treatment centres in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS A total of 242 detoxified, recently abstinent patients with severe AUD (18-60 years; 29.8% female). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR Both interventions [standard Alc-IT (n = 84) and improved Alc-IT (n = 79)] and the comparator [unspecific inhibition training (n = 79)] consisted of six sessions of a modified inhibitory task (Go/NoGo task) with alcohol-related and neutral stimuli. Both versions of Alc-IT required response inhibition in alcohol-related trials but differed in Go/NoGo ratios (standard: 50/50; improved: 75/25), with improved Alc-IT posing higher inhibitory demands. The control condition, an unspecific inhibition training, featured alcohol-related pictures in Go as well as NoGo trials. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome, percentage of days abstinent, was assessed at 3-month follow-up with a time-line follow-back interview. FINDINGS The group receiving improved Alc-IT showed a significantly higher percentage of days abstinent at 3-month follow-up compared with the control group [γcontrol = 74.30; γimproved = 85.78; β = 11.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.57, 20.40, P = 0.012, adjusted r2 = 0.062], while for standard Alc-IT no effect significantly different from zero was detected (γstandard = 70.95; β = -3.35, 95% CI = -12.20, 5.50, P = 0.457, adjusted r2 = -0.04). CONCLUSIONS Alcohol-specific inhibition training with high inhibitory demands increased days abstinent at 3-month follow-up in patients with severe alcohol use disorder. Such an improved, inhibitory-demanding, alcohol-specific inhibition training outperformed the standard version of alcohol-specific inhibition training, suggesting an inhibitory working mechanism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Stein
- University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Leila M Soravia
- University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Clinic Suedhang, Center for Treatment of Addictive Disorders, Kirchlindach, Switzerland
| | - Raphaela M Tschuemperlin
- University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Clinic Suedhang, Center for Treatment of Addictive Disorders, Kirchlindach, Switzerland
| | - Hallie M Batschelet
- University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Joshua Jaeger
- Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Clinic Suedhang, Center for Treatment of Addictive Disorders, Kirchlindach, Switzerland
| | - Susanne Roesner
- Forel Clinic, Addiction Treatment Center, Ellikon an der Thur, Switzerland
| | - Anne Keller
- Forel Clinic, Addiction Treatment Center, Ellikon an der Thur, Switzerland
| | | | - Reinout W Wiers
- Addiction, Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT-) Labotratory, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Franz Moggi
- University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Research Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
De Oliveira Sergio T, Frasier RM, Hopf FW. Animal models of compulsion alcohol drinking: Why we love quinine-resistant intake and what we learned from it. Front Psychiatry 2023; 14:1116901. [PMID: 37032937 PMCID: PMC10080007 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1116901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Accepted: 02/17/2023] [Indexed: 04/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) ranks among the most prevalent mental disorders, extracting ~$250 billion/year in the US alone and producing myriad medical and social harms. Also, the number of deaths related to problem drinking has been increasing dramatically. Compulsive alcohol drinking, characterized by intake that persists despite negative consequences, can be particularly important and a major obstacle to treatment. With the number of people suffering from AUD increasing during the past years, there is a critical need to understand the neurobiology related to compulsive drives for alcohol, as well as the development of novel AUD pharmacological therapies. Here we discuss rodent compulsion-like alcohol drinking (CLAD) models, focusing on the two most widely used adverse stimuli to model rodent compulsion-like responding, quinine adulteration of alcohol and footshook-resistant alcohol intake. For both cases, the goal is to uncover behavior patterns and brain circuits that underlie drive for alcohol even in the face of negative consequences. We discuss caveats, benefits, and potential brain mechanisms, of models for consequence-resistant responding for alcohol more generally, and especially highlight some advantages of quinine-resistance over footshook-resistance. Further, since this review contributes to a Special issue focused on Molecular Aspects of Compulsive Drug Use, we discuss our new findings showing how the noradrenergic system is related to CLAD responding. In particular, we comment on the importance of α1 and β adrenergic receptors (ARs) as potential targets for treating AUD.
Collapse
|
6
|
Manning V, Bolt G. Cognitive Assessment, Management, and Training in Addiction Treatment. HANDBOOK OF SUBSTANCE MISUSE AND ADDICTIONS 2022:93-121. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-92392-1_6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2025]
|