Technological Interventions for Medication Adherence in Adult Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is critical to the effectiveness of psychopharmacologic therapy. Psychiatric disorders present special adherence considerations, notably an altered capacity for decision making and the increased street value of controlled substances. A wide range of interventions designed to improve adherence in mental health and substance use disorders have been studied; recently, many have incorporated information technology (eg, mobile phone apps, electronic pill dispensers, and telehealth). Many intervention components have been studied across different disorders. Furthermore, many interventions incorporate multiple components, making it difficult to evaluate the effect of individual components in isolation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic scoping review to develop a literature-driven, transdiagnostic taxonomic framework of technology-based medication adherence intervention and measurement components used in mental health and substance use disorders. METHODS: This review was conducted based on a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42018067902) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines. We searched 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Engineering Village, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to September 2018. Overall, 2 reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screens, full-text screens, and data extraction. We included all studies that evaluate populations or individuals with a mental health or substance use disorder and contain at least 1 technology-delivered component (eg, website, mobile phone app, biosensor, or algorithm) designed to improve medication adherence or the measurement thereof. Given the wide variety of studied interventions, populations, and outcomes, we did not conduct a risk of bias assessment or quantitative meta-analysis. We developed a taxonomic framework for intervention classification and applied it to multicomponent interventions across mental health disorders. RESULTS: The initial search identified 21,749 results; after screening, 127 included studies remained (Cohen kappa: 0.8, 95% CI 0.72-0.87). Major intervention component categories include reminders, support messages, social support engagement, care team contact capabilities, data feedback, psychoeducation, adherence-based psychotherapy, remote care delivery, secure medication storage, and contingency management. Adherence measurement components include self-reports, remote direct visualization, fully automated computer vision algorithms, biosensors, smart pill bottles, ingestible sensors, pill counts, and utilization measures. Intervention modalities include short messaging service, mobile phone apps, websites, and interactive voice response. We provide graphical representations of intervention component categories and an element-wise breakdown of multicomponent interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Many technology-based medication adherence and monitoring interventions have been studied across psychiatric disease contexts. Interventions that are useful in one psychiatric disorder may be useful in other disorders, and further research is necessary to elucidate the specific effects of individual intervention components. Our framework is directly developed from the substance use disorder and mental health treatment literature and allows for transdiagnostic comparisons and an organized conceptual mapping of interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».