MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217650848 · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.039

Effectiveness of digital interventions for people with comorbid heavy drinking and depression: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

2021· review· en· W3217650848 on OpenAlexaff
Amy O’Donnell, Christiane Sybille Schmidt, Fiona Beyer, Margret Schrietter, Peter Anderson, Eva Jané‐Llopis, Eileen Kaner, Bernd Schulte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionDepression (economics)Meta-analysisMedicineIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialSystematic reviewMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Heavy drinking and depression frequently co-occur and make a substantial contribution to the global non-communicable disease burden. Positive evidence exists for the use of digital interventions with these conditions alone, but there has been limited assessment of combined approaches. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the effectiveness of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and major depression in community-dwelling populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases were searched to October 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated any personalised digital intervention for comorbid heavy drinking and depression. Primary outcomes were changes in quantity of alcohol consumed and depressive symptoms. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and undertook risk of bias assessment. Due to the limited number and heterogeneity of studies identified, meta-analysis was not possible, therefore data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Of 898 articles identified, 24 papers were reviewed in full, five of which met the inclusion criteria (N = 1503 participants). Three utilised web-based intervention delivery; two computer programmes delivered in a clinic setting. All involved multi-component interventions; treatment length varied from one to ten sessions. Four studies found no evidence for the superiority of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and depression over therapist-delivered approaches, single condition interventions (including online), or assessment-only controls. Positive impacts of integrated online therapy compared to generalist online health advice were reported in a fifth study, but not maintained beyond the 1-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Few eligible, heterogeneous studies prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence exists of the effectiveness of combined digital interventions for comorbid heavy drinking and depression in community dwelling populations.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective DisordersSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207