手机应用对药物使用障碍的治疗内容:综述

Tyler S. Oesterle MD, MPH , Daniel K. Hall-Flavin MD, MS , Nicholas L. Bormann MD , Larissa L. Loukianova MD, PhD , David C. Fipps DO , Scott A. Breitinger MD , Wesley P. Gilliam PhD , Tiffany Wu MD , Sabrina Correa da Costa MD , Stephan Arndt PhD , Victor M. Karpyak MD, PhD
{"title":"手机应用对药物使用障碍的治疗内容:综述","authors":"Tyler S. Oesterle MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Daniel K. Hall-Flavin MD, MS ,&nbsp;Nicholas L. Bormann MD ,&nbsp;Larissa L. Loukianova MD, PhD ,&nbsp;David C. Fipps DO ,&nbsp;Scott A. Breitinger MD ,&nbsp;Wesley P. Gilliam PhD ,&nbsp;Tiffany Wu MD ,&nbsp;Sabrina Correa da Costa MD ,&nbsp;Stephan Arndt PhD ,&nbsp;Victor M. Karpyak MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.03.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mobile phone applications (MPAs) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are increasingly used by patients. Although pilot studies have shown promising results, multiple previous systematic reviews noted insufficient evidence for MPA use in SUD treatment—many of the previously published reviews evaluated different trials. Subsequently, we aimed to conduct an umbrella review of previously published reviews investigating the efficacy of MPAs for SUD treatment, excluding nicotine/tobacco because umbrella reviews have been done in this population and the nicotine/tobacco MPA approach often differs from SUD-focused MPAs. No previous reviews have included a statistical meta-analysis of clinical trials to quantify an estimated overall effect. Seven reviews met inclusion criteria, and 17 unique studies with available data were taken from those reviews for the meta-analysis. Overall, reviews reported a lack of evidence for recommending MPAs for SUD treatment. However, MPA-delivered recovery support services, cognitive behavioral therapy, and contingency management were identified across multiple reviews as having promising evidence for SUD treatment. Hedges <em>g</em> effect size for an MPA reduction in substance use–related outcomes relative to the control arm was insignificant (0.137; 95% CI, −0.056 to 0.330; <em>P</em>=.16). In subgroup analysis, contingency management (1.29; 95% CI, 1.088-1.482; <em>τ</em><sup>2</sup>=0; <em>k</em>=2) and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.030; <em>τ</em><sup>2</sup>=0; <em>k</em>=2) were significant. Although contingency management’s effect was large, both trials were small (samples of 40 and 30). This review includes an adapted framework for the American Psychiatric Association’s MPA guidelines that clinicians can implement to review MPAs critically with patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"2 2","pages":"Pages 192-206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294976122400021X/pdfft?md5=ec649c717fe9aa97fc59b17250a82fe9&pid=1-s2.0-S294976122400021X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Therapeutic Content of Mobile Phone Applications for Substance Use Disorders: An Umbrella Review\",\"authors\":\"Tyler S. Oesterle MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Daniel K. Hall-Flavin MD, MS ,&nbsp;Nicholas L. Bormann MD ,&nbsp;Larissa L. Loukianova MD, PhD ,&nbsp;David C. Fipps DO ,&nbsp;Scott A. Breitinger MD ,&nbsp;Wesley P. Gilliam PhD ,&nbsp;Tiffany Wu MD ,&nbsp;Sabrina Correa da Costa MD ,&nbsp;Stephan Arndt PhD ,&nbsp;Victor M. Karpyak MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.03.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Mobile phone applications (MPAs) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are increasingly used by patients. Although pilot studies have shown promising results, multiple previous systematic reviews noted insufficient evidence for MPA use in SUD treatment—many of the previously published reviews evaluated different trials. Subsequently, we aimed to conduct an umbrella review of previously published reviews investigating the efficacy of MPAs for SUD treatment, excluding nicotine/tobacco because umbrella reviews have been done in this population and the nicotine/tobacco MPA approach often differs from SUD-focused MPAs. No previous reviews have included a statistical meta-analysis of clinical trials to quantify an estimated overall effect. Seven reviews met inclusion criteria, and 17 unique studies with available data were taken from those reviews for the meta-analysis. Overall, reviews reported a lack of evidence for recommending MPAs for SUD treatment. However, MPA-delivered recovery support services, cognitive behavioral therapy, and contingency management were identified across multiple reviews as having promising evidence for SUD treatment. Hedges <em>g</em> effect size for an MPA reduction in substance use–related outcomes relative to the control arm was insignificant (0.137; 95% CI, −0.056 to 0.330; <em>P</em>=.16). In subgroup analysis, contingency management (1.29; 95% CI, 1.088-1.482; <em>τ</em><sup>2</sup>=0; <em>k</em>=2) and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.030; <em>τ</em><sup>2</sup>=0; <em>k</em>=2) were significant. Although contingency management’s effect was large, both trials were small (samples of 40 and 30). This review includes an adapted framework for the American Psychiatric Association’s MPA guidelines that clinicians can implement to review MPAs critically with patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 192-206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294976122400021X/pdfft?md5=ec649c717fe9aa97fc59b17250a82fe9&pid=1-s2.0-S294976122400021X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294976122400021X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294976122400021X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

用于药物使用障碍(SUD)治疗的手机应用程序(MPA)越来越多地被患者使用。虽然试点研究显示了良好的效果,但之前的多篇系统性综述指出,MPA用于SUD治疗的证据不足--之前发表的许多综述对不同的试验进行了评估。因此,我们旨在对以前发表的研究 MPA 对 SUD 治疗效果的综述进行总括性综述,但不包括尼古丁/烟草,因为总括性综述是针对这一人群进行的,而且尼古丁/烟草 MPA 方法往往不同于以 SUD 为重点的 MPA。以往的综述均未对临床试验进行统计荟萃分析,以量化估计的总体效果。有七篇综述符合纳入标准,荟萃分析从这些综述中选取了 17 项具有可用数据的研究。总体而言,综述报告称缺乏推荐 MPA 用于 SUD 治疗的证据。不过,在多篇综述中,MPA 提供的康复支持服务、认知行为疗法和应急管理被认为在 SUD 治疗方面具有前景看好的证据。与对照组相比,MPA减少药物使用相关结果的赫奇斯效应大小不显著(0.137;95% CI,-0.056 至 0.330;P=.16)。在分组分析中,应急管理(1.29;95% CI,1.088-1.482;τ2=0;k=2)和认知行为疗法(0.02;95% CI,0.001-0.030;τ2=0;k=2)的效果显著。虽然应急管理的效果很大,但两项试验的样本量都很小(分别为 40 和 30 个样本)。这篇综述包括美国精神病学协会 MPA 指南的改编框架,临床医生可以实施该框架,与患者一起严格审查 MPA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Therapeutic Content of Mobile Phone Applications for Substance Use Disorders: An Umbrella Review

Mobile phone applications (MPAs) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment are increasingly used by patients. Although pilot studies have shown promising results, multiple previous systematic reviews noted insufficient evidence for MPA use in SUD treatment—many of the previously published reviews evaluated different trials. Subsequently, we aimed to conduct an umbrella review of previously published reviews investigating the efficacy of MPAs for SUD treatment, excluding nicotine/tobacco because umbrella reviews have been done in this population and the nicotine/tobacco MPA approach often differs from SUD-focused MPAs. No previous reviews have included a statistical meta-analysis of clinical trials to quantify an estimated overall effect. Seven reviews met inclusion criteria, and 17 unique studies with available data were taken from those reviews for the meta-analysis. Overall, reviews reported a lack of evidence for recommending MPAs for SUD treatment. However, MPA-delivered recovery support services, cognitive behavioral therapy, and contingency management were identified across multiple reviews as having promising evidence for SUD treatment. Hedges g effect size for an MPA reduction in substance use–related outcomes relative to the control arm was insignificant (0.137; 95% CI, −0.056 to 0.330; P=.16). In subgroup analysis, contingency management (1.29; 95% CI, 1.088-1.482; τ2=0; k=2) and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.030; τ2=0; k=2) were significant. Although contingency management’s effect was large, both trials were small (samples of 40 and 30). This review includes an adapted framework for the American Psychiatric Association’s MPA guidelines that clinicians can implement to review MPAs critically with patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊最新文献
Predicting Inpatient Admissions From Emergency Department Triage Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review Policing the Boundary Between Responsible and Irresponsible Placing on the Market of Large Language Model Health Applications Leveraging Comprehensive Echo Data to Power Artificial Intelligence Models for Handheld Cardiac Ultrasound Impact of Ambient Artificial Intelligence Documentation on Cognitive Load Assessing Equitable Development and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Patient Engagement Technologies: A Sociotechnical Systems Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1