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 , 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","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 , 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\",\"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。
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.