MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3138152696 · doi:10.2196/21087

Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of a Community-Based Addiction Rehabilitation Electronic System in Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3138152696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaomin Xu, Shujuan Chen, Junning Chen, Zhikang Chen, Liming Fu, Dingchen Song, Min Zhao, Haifeng Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialmHealthAddictionMedicineCommunity-based rehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Community healthPublic healthPsychological interventionPhysical therapyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Drug use disorder has high potential for relapse and imposes an enormous burden on public health in China. Since the promulgation of the Anti-drug law in 2008, community-based rehabilitation has become the primary approach to treat drug addiction. However, multiple problems occurred in the implementation process, leading to a low detoxification rate in the community. Mobile health (mHealth) serves as a promising tool to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of community-based rehabilitation. Community-based addiction rehabilitation electronic system (CAREs) is an interactive system for drug users and their assigned social workers. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of CAREs in community-based rehabilitation from the perspective of drug users and social workers in Shanghai, China. METHODS: In this pilot randomized controlled trial, 40 participants were recruited from the community in Shanghai from January to May 2019. Participants randomized to the intervention group (n=20) received CAREs + community-based rehabilitation, while participants in the control group (n=20) received community-based rehabilitation only for 6 months. CAREs provided education, assessment, and SOS (support) functions for drug users. The assigned social workers provided service and monitored drug use behavior as usual except that the social workers in the intervention group could access the webpage end to obtain drug users' information and fit their routine workflow into CAREs. The primary outcome was the feasibility of CAREs, reflected in the overall proportion and frequency of CAREs features used in both app and webpage end. The secondary outcomes were the effectiveness of CAREs, including the percentage of drug-positive samples, longest period of abstinence, contact times with social workers, and the change of Addiction Severity Index (ASI) from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The number of participants logged in to the app ranged from 7 to 20 per week, and CAREs had relatively high levels of continued patient use. Drug users preferred assessment and education features in the app end while their social workers showed high levels of use in urine results record and viewing assessment results on the webpage end. After the 6-month intervention, 3.3% (17/520) of samples in the intervention group and 7.5% (39/520) in the control group were drug-positive (F=4.358, P=.04). No significant differences were noted between the control and intervention groups in terms of longest duration of abstinence, number of contact times and ASI composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: The study preliminarily demonstrated that with relatively good feasibility and acceptability, CAREs may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the community-based rehabilitation, which provided instruction for further improvement of the system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03451344; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03451344. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00556.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→