MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241923926 · doi:10.2196/preprints.25952

Benefits of Digital Health Resources for Substance Use Concerns in Women: Scoping Review (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4241923926 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lena C. Quilty, Branka Agic, Michelle L. Coombs, Betty-Lou Kristy, Jill Shakespeare, Adrienne Spafford, Reena Besa, Shadini Dematagoda, Alina Patel, Rebecca Persaud, Leslie Buckley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychological interventionCINAHLGrey literatureMEDLINEMedicineCochrane LibraryHealth careFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Digital health resources are being increasingly used to support women with substance use concerns. Although empirical research has demonstrated that these resources have promise, the available evidence for their benefit in women requires further investigation. Evidence supports the capacity of interventions that are sex-, gender-, and trauma-informed to improve treatment access and outcomes and to reduce health system challenges and disparities. Indeed, both sex- and gender-specific approaches are critical to improve health and gender equity. Violence and trauma are frequent among those with substance use concerns, but they disproportionately affect those who identify as female or women, further underscoring the need for trauma-informed care as well. OBJECTIVE The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the evidence supporting the efficacy or effectiveness of online or mobile interventions for risky or harmful substance use in adults who identify as female or women, or who report a history of trauma. METHODS This scoping review is based on an academic search in MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL, as well as a grey literature search in US and Canadian government and funding agency websites. Of the 7807 records identified, 465 remained following title and abstract screening. Of these, 159 met all eligibility criteria and were reviewed and synthesized. RESULTS The 159 records reflected 141 distinct studies and 125 distinct interventions. Investigations and the interventions evaluated predominantly focused on alcohol use or general substance use. Evaluated digital health resources included multisession and brief-session interventions, with a wide range of therapeutic elements. Multisession online and mobile interventions exhibited beneficial effects in 86.1% (105/122) of studies. Single-session interventions similarly demonstrated beneficial effects in 64.2% (43/67) of study conditions. Most investigations did not assess gender identity or conduct sex- or gender-based analyses. Only 13 investigations that included trauma were identified. CONCLUSIONS Despite the overall promise of digital health interventions for substance use concerns, direct or quantitative evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in females or women specifically is weak.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→