Brian D. Kiluk et al. · 2019 · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · Open access
Background Cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT) has long‐standing evidence for efficacy in the treatment of alcohol use, yet implementation in clinical practice has been challenging. Delivery of CBT through technology‐based platforms, such as web‐based programs and mobile applications, has the potential to provide widespread access to this evidence‐based intervention. While there have been reviews indicating the efficacy of technology‐based delivery of CBT for various psychiatric conditions, none have focused on efficacy for alcohol use. The current meta‐analysis was conducted to fill this research gap. Methods Descriptive data were used to characterize the nature of the literature on technology‐delivered, CBT‐based interventions for alcohol use (“CBT Tech”). Inverse‐variance‐weighted effect sizes were calculated, and random effects, effect sizes were pooled in 4 subgroups. Results Fifteen published trials conducted primarily with at‐risk or heavy drinkers were identified. Of these studies, 60% explicitly targeted alcohol use moderation. The content of CBT Tech programs varied, ranging from 4 to 62 sessions/exercises, with many programs combining elements of motivational interviewing (47%). With respect to efficacy, CBT Tech as a stand‐alone treatment in contrast to a minimal treatment control showed a positive and statistically significant, albeit small effect ( g = 0.20: 95% CI = 0.22, 0.38, k es = 5). When CBT Tech was compared to treatment as usual (TAU), effects were nonsignificant. However, when CBT Tech was tested as an addition to TAU, in contrast to TAU only, the effect size was positive, significant ( g = 0.30: 95% CI = 0.10, 0.50, k es = 7), and stable over 12‐month follow‐up. Only 2 studies compared CBT Tech to in‐person CBT, and this pooled effect size did not suggest superior efficacy. Conclusions These results show a benefit for technology‐delivered, CBT‐based interventions as a stand‐alone therapy for heavy drinking or as an addition to usual care in specialty substance use settings.
Research and education tool only. Not for diagnosis, emergency care, legal advice, or treatment recommendations. Verify citations against original sources.
David C. Atkins et al. · 2014 · Implementation Science · Open access
BACKGROUND: Behavioral interventions such as psychotherapy are leading, evidence-based practices for a variety of problems (e.g., substance abuse), but the evaluation of provider fidelity to behavioral interventions is limited by the need for human judgment. The current study evaluated the accuracy of statistical text classification in replicating human-based judgments of provider fidelity in one specific psychotherapy--motivational interviewing (MI). METHOD: Participants (n = 148) came from five previously conducted randomized trials and were either primary care patients at a safety-net hospital or university students. To be eligible for the original studies, participants met criteria for either problematic drug or alcohol use. All participants received a type of brief motivational interview, an evidence-based intervention for alcohol and substance use disorders. The Motivational Interviewing Skills Code is a standard measure of MI provider fidelity based on human ratings that was used to evaluate all therapy sessions. A text classification approach called a labeled topic model was used to learn associations between human-based fidelity ratings and MI session transcripts. It was then used to generate codes for new sessions. The primary comparison was the accuracy of model-based codes with human-based codes. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of model-based codes showed reasonably strong sensitivity and specificity with those from human raters (range of area under ROC curve (AUC) scores: 0.62 - 0.81; average AUC: 0.72). Agreement with human raters was evaluated based on talk turns as well as code tallies for an entire session. Generated codes had higher reliability with human codes for session tallies and also varied strongly by individual code. CONCLUSION: To scale up the evaluation of behavioral interventions, technological solutions will be required. The current study demonstrated preliminary, encouraging findings regarding the utility of statistical text classification in bridging this methodological gap.
Ida E H Madsen et al. · 2017 · Psychological Medicine · Open access
BACKGROUND: Adverse psychosocial working environments characterized by job strain (the combination of high demands and low control at work) are associated with an increased risk of depressive symptoms among employees, but evidence on clinically diagnosed depression is scarce. We examined job strain as a risk factor for clinical depression. METHOD: We identified published cohort studies from a systematic literature search in PubMed and PsycNET and obtained 14 cohort studies with unpublished individual-level data from the Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis in Working Populations (IPD-Work) Consortium. Summary estimates of the association were obtained using random-effects models. Individual-level data analyses were based on a pre-published study protocol. RESULTS: We included six published studies with a total of 27 461 individuals and 914 incident cases of clinical depression. From unpublished datasets we included 120 221 individuals and 982 first episodes of hospital-treated clinical depression. Job strain was associated with an increased risk of clinical depression in both published [relative risk (RR) = 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47-2.13] and unpublished datasets (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.55). Further individual participant analyses showed a similar association across sociodemographic subgroups and after excluding individuals with baseline somatic disease. The association was unchanged when excluding individuals with baseline depressive symptoms (RR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.94-1.65), but attenuated on adjustment for a continuous depressive symptoms score (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Job strain may precipitate clinical depression among employees. Future intervention studies should test whether job strain is a modifiable risk factor for depression.
Nora D. Volkow & Carlos Blanco · 2023 · World Psychiatry · Open access
Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and exact a large toll on individuals' health, well-being, and social functioning. Long-lasting changes in brain networks involved in reward, executive function, stress reactivity, mood, and self-awareness underlie the intense drive to consume substances and the inability to control this urge in a person who suffers from addiction (moderate or severe SUD). Biological (including genetics and developmental life stages) and social (including adverse childhood experiences) determinants of health are recognized factors that contribute to vulnerability for or resilience against developing a SUD. Consequently, prevention strategies that target social risk factors can improve outcomes and, when deployed in childhood and adolescence, can decrease the risk for these disorders. SUDs are treatable, and evidence of clinically significant benefit exists for medications (in opioid, nicotine and alcohol use disorders), behavioral therapies (in all SUDs), and neuromodulation (in nicotine use disorder). Treatment of SUDs should be considered within the context of a Chronic Care Model, with the intensity of intervention adjusted to the severity of the disorder and with the concomitant treatment of comorbid psychiatric and physical conditions. Involvement of health care providers in detection and management of SUDs, including referral of severe cases to specialized care, offers sustainable models of care that can be further expanded with the use of telehealth. Despite advances in our understanding and management of SUDs, individuals with these conditions continue to be stigmatized and, in some countries, incarcerated, highlighting the need to dismantle policies that perpetuate their criminalization and instead develop policies to ensure support and access to prevention and treatment.
E Bethan Davies et al. · 2014 · Journal of Medical Internet Research · Open access
BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common mental health difficulties experienced by university students and can impair academic and social functioning. Students are limited in seeking help from professionals. As university students are highly connected to digital technologies, Web-based and computer-delivered interventions could be used to improve students' mental health. The effectiveness of these intervention types requires investigation to identify whether these are viable prevention strategies for university students. OBJECTIVE: The intent of the study was to systematically review and analyze trials of Web-based and computer-delivered interventions to improve depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and stress in university students. METHODS: Several databases were searched using keywords relating to higher education students, mental health, and eHealth interventions. The eligibility criteria for studies included in the review were: (1) the study aimed to improve symptoms relating to depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and stress, (2) the study involved computer-delivered or Web-based interventions accessed via computer, laptop, or tablet, (3) the study was a randomized controlled trial, and (4) the study was trialed on higher education students. Trials were reviewed and outcome data analyzed through random effects meta-analyses for each outcome and each type of trial arm comparison. Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: A total of 17 trials were identified, in which seven were the same three interventions on separate samples; 14 reported sufficient information for meta-analysis. The majority (n=13) were website-delivered and nine interventions were based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A total of 1795 participants were randomized and 1480 analyzed. Risk of bias was considered moderate, as many publications did not sufficiently report their methods and seven explicitly conducted completers' analyses. In comparison to the inactive control, sensitivity meta-analyses supported intervention in improving anxiety (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.56; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.35, P<.001), depression (pooled SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, P<.001), and stress (pooled SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.27 to -0.19, P=.008). In comparison to active controls, sensitivity analyses did not support either condition for anxiety (pooled SMD -0.18; 95% CI -0.98 to 0.62, P=.66) or depression (pooled SMD -0.28; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.20, P=.25). In contrast to a comparison intervention, neither condition was supported in sensitivity analyses for anxiety (pooled SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.18, P=.48) or depression (pooled SMD -0.33; 95% CI -0.43 to 1.09, P=.40). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest Web-based and computer-delivered interventions can be effective in improving students' depression, anxiety, and stress outcomes when compared to inactive controls, but some caution is needed when compared to other trial arms and methodological issues were noticeable. Interventions need to be trialed on more heterogeneous student samples and would benefit from user evaluation. Future trials should address methodological considerations to improve reporting of trial quality and address post-intervention skewed data.
Lindsay F Stead et al. · 2012 · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · Open access
BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
Anja Hilbert et al. · 2018 · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · Open access
OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive meta-analysis on the efficacy of psychological and medical treatments for binge-eating disorder (BED), including those targeting weight loss. METHOD: Through a systematic search before March 2018, 81 published and unpublished randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), totaling 7,515 individuals with BED (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition [DSM-IV] and Fifth Edition [DSM-5]), were retrieved and analyzed using random-effect modeling. RESULTS: In RCTs with inactive control groups, psychotherapy, mostly consisting of cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed large-size effects for the reduction of binge-eating episodes and abstinence from binge eating, followed by structured self-help treatment with medium-to-large effects when compared with wait-list. Pharmacotherapy and pharmacological weight loss treatment mostly outperformed pill placebo conditions with small effects on binge-eating outcome. These results were confirmed for the most common treatments of cognitive-behavioral therapy, self-help treatment based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, and lisdexamfetamine. In RCTs with active control groups, there was limited evidence for the superiority of one treatment category or treatment. In a few studies, psychotherapy outperformed behavioral weight loss treatment in short- and long-term binge-eating outcome and led to lower longer-term abstinence than self-help treatment, while combined treatment revealed no additive effect on binge-eating outcome over time. Overall study quality was heterogeneous and the quality of evidence for binge-eating outcome was generally very low. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of psychotherapy, structured self-help treatment, and pharmacotherapy for patients with BED. More high quality research on treatments for BED is warranted, with a focus on long-term maintenance of therapeutic gains, comparative efficacy, mechanisms through which treatments work, and complex models of care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Wouter van Ballegooijen et al. · 2014 · PLoS ONE · Open access
BACKGROUND: Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) is an effective and acceptable treatment for depression, especially when it includes guidance, but its treatment adherence has not yet been systematically studied. We conducted a meta-analysis, comparing the adherence to guided iCBT with the adherence to individual face-to-face CBT. METHODS: Studies were selected from a database of trials that investigate treatment for adult depression (see www.evidencebasedpsychotherapies.org), updated to January 2013. We identified 24 studies describing 26 treatment conditions (14 face-to-face CBT, 12 guided iCBT), by means of these inclusion criteria: targeting depressed adults, no comorbid somatic disorder or substance abuse, community recruitment, published in the year 2000 or later. The main outcome measure was the percentage of completed sessions. We also coded the percentage of treatment completers (separately coding for 100% or at least 80% of treatment completed). RESULTS: We did not find studies that compared guided iCBT and face-to-face CBT in a single trial that met our inclusion criteria. Face-to-face CBT treatments ranged from 12 to 28 sessions, guided iCBT interventions consisted of 5 to 9 sessions. Participants in face-to-face CBT completed on average 83.9% of their treatment, which did not differ significantly from participants in guided iCBT (80.8%, P = .59). The percentage of completers (total intervention) was significantly higher in face-to-face CBT (84.7%) than in guided iCBT (65.1%, P < .001), as was the percentage of completers of 80% or more of the intervention (face-to-face CBT: 85.2%, guided iCBT: 67.5%, P = .003). Non-completers of face-to-face CBT completed on average 24.5% of their treatment, while non-completers of guided iCBT completed on average 42.1% of their treatment. CONCLUSION: We did not find studies that compared guided iCBT and face-to-face CBT in a single trial. Adherence to guided iCBT appears to be adequate and could be equal to adherence to face-to-face CBT.
Nicki A. Dowling et al. · 2015 · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · Open access
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to systematically review and meta-analyse the prevalence of co-morbid psychiatric disorders (DSM-IV Axis I disorders) among treatment-seeking problem gamblers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for peer-reviewed studies that provided prevalence estimates of Axis I psychiatric disorders in individuals seeking psychological or pharmacological treatment for problem gambling (including pathological gambling). Meta-analytic techniques were performed to estimate the weighted mean effect size and heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Results from 36 studies identified high rates of co-morbid current (74.8%, 95% CI 36.5-93.9) and lifetime (75.5%, 95% CI 46.5-91.8) Axis I disorders. There were high rates of current mood disorders (23.1%, 95% CI 14.9-34.0), alcohol use disorders (21.2%, 95% CI 15.6-28.1), anxiety disorders (17.6%, 95% CI 10.8-27.3) and substance (non-alcohol) use disorders (7.0%, 95% CI 1.7-24.9). Specifically, the highest mean prevalence of current psychiatric disorders was for nicotine dependence (56.4%, 95% CI 35.7-75.2) and major depressive disorder (29.9%, 95% CI 20.5-41.3), with smaller estimates for alcohol abuse (18.2%, 95% CI 13.4-24.2), alcohol dependence (15.2%, 95% CI 10.2-22.0), social phobia (14.9%, 95% CI 2.0-59.8), generalised anxiety disorder (14.4%, 95% CI 3.9-40.8), panic disorder (13.7%, 95% CI 6.7-26.0), post-traumatic stress disorder (12.3%, 95% CI 3.4-35.7), cannabis use disorder (11.5%, 95% CI 4.8-25.0), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (9.3%, 95% CI 4.1-19.6), adjustment disorder (9.2%, 95% CI 4.8-17.2), bipolar disorder (8.8%, 95% CI 4.4-17.1) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (8.2%, 95% CI 3.4-18.6). There were no consistent patterns according to gambling problem severity, type of treatment facility and study jurisdiction. Although these estimates were robust to the inclusion of studies with non-representative sampling biases, they should be interpreted with caution as they were highly variable across studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need for gambling treatment services to undertake routine screening and assessment of psychiatric co-morbidity and provide treatment approaches that adequately manage these co-morbid disorders. Further research is required to explore the reasons for the variability observed in the prevalence estimates.