MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209023096 · doi:10.2196/31353

A Personalized Approach Bias Modification Smartphone App (“SWiPE”) to Reduce Alcohol Use: Open-Label Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness Study

2021· article· en· W3209023096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Manning, Hugh Piercy, Joshua B. B. Garfield, Stuart Gregory Clark, Mah Noor Andrabi, Dan I. Lubman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsAlcohol Use Disorders Identification TestmHealthMedicineCravingAlcoholIntervention (counseling)Alcohol use disorderAlcohol consumptionPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychological interventionPoison controlPsychiatryInjury preventionEnvironmental healthAddiction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Approach bias modification (ApBM), a computerized cognitive intervention that trains people to “avoid” alcohol-related images and “approach” nonalcohol images, reduces the likelihood of relapse when administered during residential alcohol treatment. However, most individuals experiencing alcohol problems do not require, do not seek, or have difficulty accessing residential treatment. Smartphone-delivered ApBM could offer an easily accessible intervention to reduce alcohol consumption that can be personalized (eg, allowing selection of personally relevant alcohol and positive nonalcohol training images) and gamified to optimize engagement. Objective We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of “SWiPE,” a gamified, personalized alcohol ApBM smartphone app, and explored alcohol consumption and craving outcomes in people drinking at hazardous levels or above (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] score ≥8) who wanted to reduce their alcohol use. Methods In this open-label trial, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence severity, and craving were measured prior to participants downloading SWiPE. Participants (n=1309) were instructed to complete at least 2 sessions per week for 4 weeks. Recruitment and completion rates were indicators of feasibility. Functionality, aesthetics, and quality ratings were indicators of acceptability. Participants were prompted to report frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption weekly during training and 1 month after training. They completed measures of craving and dependence after 4 weeks of training. Results We recruited 1309 participants (mean age 47.0, SD 10.0 years; 758/1309, 57.9% female; mean AUDIT score 21.8, SD 6.5) over 6 months. Participants completed a median of 5 sessions (IQR 2-9); 31.2% (409/1309) completed ≥8 sessions; and 34.8% (455/1309) completed the posttraining survey. Mean Mobile Application Rating Scale scores indicated good acceptability for functionality and aesthetics and fair acceptability for subjective quality. Among those who completed the posttraining assessment, mean past-week drinking days reduced from 5.1 (SD 2.0) pre-training to 4.2 (SD 2.3) in week 4 (t454=7.87; P<.001), and mean past-week standard drinks reduced from 32.8 (SD 22.1) to 24.7 (SD 20.1; t454=8.58; P<.001). Mean Craving Experience Questionnaire frequency scores reduced from 4.5 (SD 2.0) to 2.8 (SD 1.8; t435=19.39; P<.001). Severity of Dependence scores reduced from 7.7 (SD 3.0) to 6.0 (SD 3.2; t435=12.44; P<.001). For the 19.4% (254/1309) of participants who completed a 1-month follow-up, mean past-week drinking days and standard drinks were 3.9 (SD 2.5) and 23.9 (SD 20.7), respectively, both significantly lower than at baseline (P<.001). Conclusions The findings suggest SWiPE is feasible and acceptable and may be effective at reducing alcohol consumption and craving in a predominantly nontreatment-seeking sample of adult Australians drinking at hazardous levels. SWiPE’s efficacy, relative to a control condition, now needs establishing in a randomized controlled trial. Smartphone-delivered personalized ApBM could be a highly scalable, widely accessible support tool for reducing alcohol use. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000638932; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12620000638932p International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/21278

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)0.006
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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