物质使用障碍治疗结果:度量和标准的方法学概述

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Marta Narváez-Camargo, Oscar Lozano-Rojas, Cinta Mancheño-Velasco, Antonio Verdejo-García
{"title":"物质使用障碍治疗结果:度量和标准的方法学概述","authors":"Marta Narváez-Camargo,&nbsp;Oscar Lozano-Rojas,&nbsp;Cinta Mancheño-Velasco,&nbsp;Antonio Verdejo-García","doi":"10.1002/mpr.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The heterogeneous metrics and criteria used to assess the effectiveness of substance use disorders treatment hinders cross-study comparisons. This review aims to parse such heterogeneity by analysing the operational definitions of variables used to derive metrics and outcome criteria, contributing to the standardisation process.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review in PubMed and PsycINFO between January 2000 and October 2023. We included published studies on substance use disorders that featured at least one of seven ‘a priori’ defined variables commonly used to obtain metrics and criteria for treatment effectiveness. The review process and reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Were identified three areas that can be used to define metrics and criteria associated with treatment outcome: as ‘substance use’ (abstinence and relapses), ‘treatment process’ (readmission, dropout, retention, and adherence) and ‘general wellbeing’ (quality of life). Operational definitions and metrics and criteria used were overall inconsistent.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The establishment of guidelines for evaluation of treatment outcomes is imperative, as heterogeneity is still present in the literature. We recommend that future trials provide outcomes metrics relevant to the identified categories, and that standardisation efforts continue toward harmonised criteria to report and interpret those metrics.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"34 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.70027","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Substance Use Disorder Treatment Outcomes: Methodological Overview of Metrics and Criteria\",\"authors\":\"Marta Narváez-Camargo,&nbsp;Oscar Lozano-Rojas,&nbsp;Cinta Mancheño-Velasco,&nbsp;Antonio Verdejo-García\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mpr.70027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The heterogeneous metrics and criteria used to assess the effectiveness of substance use disorders treatment hinders cross-study comparisons. This review aims to parse such heterogeneity by analysing the operational definitions of variables used to derive metrics and outcome criteria, contributing to the standardisation process.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a systematic review in PubMed and PsycINFO between January 2000 and October 2023. We included published studies on substance use disorders that featured at least one of seven ‘a priori’ defined variables commonly used to obtain metrics and criteria for treatment effectiveness. The review process and reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Were identified three areas that can be used to define metrics and criteria associated with treatment outcome: as ‘substance use’ (abstinence and relapses), ‘treatment process’ (readmission, dropout, retention, and adherence) and ‘general wellbeing’ (quality of life). Operational definitions and metrics and criteria used were overall inconsistent.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The establishment of guidelines for evaluation of treatment outcomes is imperative, as heterogeneity is still present in the literature. We recommend that future trials provide outcomes metrics relevant to the identified categories, and that standardisation efforts continue toward harmonised criteria to report and interpret those metrics.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.70027\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的用于评估物质使用障碍治疗有效性的不同指标和标准阻碍了交叉研究比较。本综述旨在通过分析用于导出度量和结果标准的变量的操作定义来解析这种异质性,从而有助于标准化过程。方法2000年1月至2023年10月在PubMed和PsycINFO上进行系统综述。我们纳入了已发表的关于物质使用障碍的研究,这些研究至少具有七个“先验”定义变量中的一个,这些变量通常用于获得治疗效果的度量和标准。审查过程和报告遵循系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目。结果确定了三个可用于定义与治疗结果相关的指标和标准的领域:“物质使用”(戒断和复发),“治疗过程”(再入院、退出、保留和坚持)和“总体健康”(生活质量)。使用的操作定义、度量和标准总体上是不一致的。结论:由于文献中仍存在异质性,建立治疗结果评估指南势在必行。我们建议未来的试验提供与已确定的类别相关的结果指标,并继续进行标准化工作,以统一报告和解释这些指标的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Substance Use Disorder Treatment Outcomes: Methodological Overview of Metrics and Criteria

Aim

The heterogeneous metrics and criteria used to assess the effectiveness of substance use disorders treatment hinders cross-study comparisons. This review aims to parse such heterogeneity by analysing the operational definitions of variables used to derive metrics and outcome criteria, contributing to the standardisation process.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in PubMed and PsycINFO between January 2000 and October 2023. We included published studies on substance use disorders that featured at least one of seven ‘a priori’ defined variables commonly used to obtain metrics and criteria for treatment effectiveness. The review process and reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Were identified three areas that can be used to define metrics and criteria associated with treatment outcome: as ‘substance use’ (abstinence and relapses), ‘treatment process’ (readmission, dropout, retention, and adherence) and ‘general wellbeing’ (quality of life). Operational definitions and metrics and criteria used were overall inconsistent.

Conclusions

The establishment of guidelines for evaluation of treatment outcomes is imperative, as heterogeneity is still present in the literature. We recommend that future trials provide outcomes metrics relevant to the identified categories, and that standardisation efforts continue toward harmonised criteria to report and interpret those metrics.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations. MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted. MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信