Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for alcohol use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis update.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Abhishek Ghosh, Nirvana Morgan, Tanya Calvey, Florian Scheibein, Ioannis Angelakis, Maria Panagioti, Marica Ferri, Dzmitry Krupchanka
{"title":"Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for alcohol use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis update.","authors":"Abhishek Ghosh, Nirvana Morgan, Tanya Calvey, Florian Scheibein, Ioannis Angelakis, Maria Panagioti, Marica Ferri, Dzmitry Krupchanka","doi":"10.1080/00952990.2024.2350056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background:</i> Given the accumulating research, evolving psychosocial treatment, and equivocal findings, updating WHO's Mental Health Gap Action Programme-2015 was necessary to ensure guidelines reflect effective strategies for alcohol use disorder (AUD).<i>Objective:</i> To estimate the effects of psychosocial interventions on drinking and related outcomes.<i>Methods:</i> We included randomized controlled trials published between January 2015 and June 2022 on adults with alcohol dependence (ICD 10/DSM-IV) and moderate to severe AUD (DSM-5), and those examined psychosocial interventions against treatment-as-usual (TAU) and active controls. Eight databases and registries were searched. Relative Risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. We used Cochrane's risk of bias assessment (RoB2).<i>Results:</i> Of 873 screened records, 14 and 13 studies in the narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Of the 2,575 participants, 71.5% were men. Thirteen studies used ICD 10/DSM IV diagnosis. Compared to TAU, any psychosocial intervention increased the relative risk of abstinence by 28% [<i>N</i> = 7, RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.53, <i>p</i> = .01, NNT = 9]. There were minimal heterogeneity and no evidence of publication bias. Psychosocial interventions were not effective in reducing the drinking frequency (<i>n</i> = 2, Hedge's g = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.26, <i>p</i> = .57) and drinks/drinking days (<i>N</i> = 5, g = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.16, <i>p</i> = .43). Treatment discontinuation did not differ between intervention and control groups [RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.80].<i>Conclusion:</i> Psychosocial interventions are effective in improving abstinence but not in reducing drinking frequency or amount. Policymakers must consider this evidence to generate AUD treatment guidelines.<i>Registration:</i> PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022342608.</p>","PeriodicalId":48957,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"442-454"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2024.2350056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the accumulating research, evolving psychosocial treatment, and equivocal findings, updating WHO's Mental Health Gap Action Programme-2015 was necessary to ensure guidelines reflect effective strategies for alcohol use disorder (AUD).Objective: To estimate the effects of psychosocial interventions on drinking and related outcomes.Methods: We included randomized controlled trials published between January 2015 and June 2022 on adults with alcohol dependence (ICD 10/DSM-IV) and moderate to severe AUD (DSM-5), and those examined psychosocial interventions against treatment-as-usual (TAU) and active controls. Eight databases and registries were searched. Relative Risk (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. We used Cochrane's risk of bias assessment (RoB2).Results: Of 873 screened records, 14 and 13 studies in the narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Of the 2,575 participants, 71.5% were men. Thirteen studies used ICD 10/DSM IV diagnosis. Compared to TAU, any psychosocial intervention increased the relative risk of abstinence by 28% [N = 7, RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.53, p = .01, NNT = 9]. There were minimal heterogeneity and no evidence of publication bias. Psychosocial interventions were not effective in reducing the drinking frequency (n = 2, Hedge's g = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.26, p = .57) and drinks/drinking days (N = 5, g = -0.10, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.16, p = .43). Treatment discontinuation did not differ between intervention and control groups [RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.80].Conclusion: Psychosocial interventions are effective in improving abstinence but not in reducing drinking frequency or amount. Policymakers must consider this evidence to generate AUD treatment guidelines.Registration: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022342608.

社会心理干预对酒精使用障碍的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析更新。
背景:鉴于研究的不断积累、社会心理治疗的不断发展以及研究结果的模棱两可,有必要更新世界卫生组织的《心理健康差距行动方案-2015》,以确保指南反映出针对酒精使用障碍(AUD)的有效策略:估计心理干预对饮酒及相关结果的影响:我们纳入了 2015 年 1 月至 2022 年 6 月间发表的关于成人酒精依赖(ICD 10/DSM-IV)和中度至重度 AUD(DSM-5)的随机对照试验,这些试验研究了心理干预与常规治疗(TAU)和积极对照的对比情况。对八个数据库和登记处进行了检索。相对风险(RR)和标准化平均差(SMD)用于二分法和连续法结果。我们使用了 Cochrane 的偏倚风险评估(RoB2):在筛选出的 873 条记录中,有 14 项和 13 项研究被纳入叙事综合和荟萃分析。在 2,575 名参与者中,71.5% 为男性。13项研究使用了ICD 10/DSM IV诊断。与TAU相比,任何社会心理干预都能将戒断的相对风险提高28% [N = 7, RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.53, p = .01, NNT = 9]。异质性极小,没有证据表明存在发表偏倚。心理干预对减少饮酒频率(N = 2,Hedge's g = -0.10,95% CI:-0.46 至 0.26,p = .57)和饮酒/饮酒天数(N = 5,g = -0.10,95% CI:-0.37 至 0.16,p = .43)无效。干预组和对照组的治疗中止率没有差异[RR = 1.09,95% CI:0.66 至 1.80]:结论:心理干预对提高戒酒率有效,但对减少饮酒频率或饮酒量无效。决策者在制定 AUD 治疗指南时必须考虑这些证据:ProCOMPRO 2022 CRD42022342608.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (AJDAA) is an international journal published six times per year and provides an important and stimulating venue for the exchange of ideas between the researchers working in diverse areas, including public policy, epidemiology, neurobiology, and the treatment of addictive disorders. AJDAA includes a wide range of translational research, covering preclinical and clinical aspects of the field. AJDAA covers these topics with focused data presentations and authoritative reviews of timely developments in our field. Manuscripts exploring addictions other than substance use disorders are encouraged. Reviews and Perspectives of emerging fields are given priority consideration. Areas of particular interest include: public health policy; novel research methodologies; human and animal pharmacology; human translational studies, including neuroimaging; pharmacological and behavioral treatments; new modalities of care; molecular and family genetic studies; medicinal use of substances traditionally considered substances of abuse.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信