Logo image
Therapeutic Content of Mobile Phone Applications for Substance Use Disorders: An Umbrella Review
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Therapeutic Content of Mobile Phone Applications for Substance Use Disorders: An Umbrella Review

Tyler S. Oesterle, Daniel K. Hall-Flavin, Nicholas L. Bormann, Larissa L. Loukianova, David C. Fipps, Scott A. Breitinger, Wesley P. Gilliam, Tiffany Wu, Sabrina Correa da Costa, Stephan Arndt, …
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health, Vol.2(2), pp.192-206
06/01/2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.03.004
PMCID: PMC11232654
PMID: 38983444
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.03.004View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

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 treatmentdmany 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; s2=0; k=2) and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.030; s2=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. (c) 2024 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Health Care Sciences & Services Life Sciences & Biomedicine Medical Informatics Science & Technology

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image