MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295080770 · doi:10.2196/36662

Content and Effectiveness of Web-Based Treatments for Online Behavioral Addictions: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4295080770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer J. Park, Daniel L. King, Laura Wilkinson‐Meyers, Simone N. Rodda

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFORandomized controlled trialCINAHLPsychological interventionAddictionMEDLINEPornographyIntervention (counseling)MedicineBehavioral addictionPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Very few people seek in-person treatment for online behavioral addictions including gaming and gambling or problems associated with shopping, pornography use, or social media use. Web-based treatments have the potential to address low rates of help seeking due to their convenience, accessibility, and capacity to address barriers to health care access (eg, shame, stigma, cost, and access to expert care). However, web-based treatments for online behavioral addictions have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically describe the content of web-based treatments for online behavioral addictions and describe their therapeutic effectiveness on symptom severity and consumption behavior. METHODS: A database search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar was conducted in June 2022. Studies were eligible if the study design was a randomized controlled trial or a pre-post study with at least 1 web-based intervention arm for an online behavioral addiction and if the study included the use of a validated measure of problem severity, frequency, or duration of online behavior. Data on change techniques were collected to analyze intervention content, using the Gambling Intervention System of CharacTerization. Quality assessment was conducted using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. RESULTS: The review included 12 studies with 15 intervention arms, comprising 7 randomized controlled trials and 5 pre-post studies. The primary focus of interventions was gaming (n=4), followed by internet use inclusive of screen time and smartphone use (n=3), gambling (n=3), and pornography (n=2). A range of different technologies were used to deliver content, including websites (n=6), email (n=2), computer software (n=2), social media messaging (n=1), smartphone app (n=1), virtual reality (n=1), and videoconferencing (n=1). Interventions contained 15 different change techniques with an average of 4 per study. The techniques most frequently administered (>30% of intervention arms) were cognitive restructuring, relapse prevention, motivational enhancement, goal setting, and social support. Assessment of study quality indicated that 7 studies met the criteria for moderate or strong global ratings, but only 8 out of 12 studies evaluated change immediately following the treatment. Across included studies, two-thirds of participants completed after-treatment evaluation, and one-quarter completed follow-up evaluation. After-intervention evaluation indicated reduced severity (5/9, 56%), frequency (2/3, 67%), and duration (3/7, 43%). Follow-up evaluation indicated that 3 pre-post studies for gaming, gambling, and internet use demonstrated reduced severity, frequency, and duration of consumption. At 3-month evaluation, just 1 pre-post study indicated significant change to mental health symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based treatments for online behavioral addictions use an array of mechanisms to deliver cognitive and behavioral change techniques. Web-based treatments demonstrate promise for short-term reduction in symptoms, duration, or frequency of online addictive behaviors. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of web-based treatments over the longer term due to the absence of controlled trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207