MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312196447 · doi:10.2196/40210

Acceptability and Feasibility of Wearable Transdermal Alcohol Sensors: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4312196447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eileen Brobbin, Paolo Deluca, Sofia Hemrage, Colin Drummond

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchKing's College LondonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOScopusMEDLINESystematic reviewMedicineRandomized controlled trialData extractionTechnicianApplied psychologyPsychologyNursingPsychological interventionEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transdermal alcohol sensors (TASs) have the potential to be used to monitor alcohol consumption objectively and continuously. These devices can provide real-time feedback to the user, researcher, or health professional and measure alcohol consumption and peaks of use, thereby addressing some of the limitations of the current methods, including breathalyzers and self-reports. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the currently available TAS devices. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus bibliographic databases in February 2021. Two members of our study team independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The study's methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was TAS acceptability. The secondary outcome was feasibility. The data are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified and analyzed 22 studies. Study designs included laboratory- and ambulatory-based studies, mixed designs, randomized controlled trials, and focus groups, and the length the device was worn ranged from days to weeks. Although views on TASs were generally positive with high compliance, some factors were indicated as potential barriers and there are suggestions to overcome these. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of research investigating the acceptability and feasibility of TAS devices as a tool to monitor alcohol consumption in clinical and nonclinical populations. Although preliminary evidence suggests their potential in short-term laboratory-based studies with volunteers, more research is needed to establish long-term daily use with other populations, specifically, in the clinical and the criminal justice system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021231027; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=231027.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human Factors→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→