MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387146226 · doi:10.1177/20552076231203876

Adherence to e-health interventions for substance use and the factors influencing it: Systematic Review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

2023· review· en· W4387146226 on OpenAlexaff
Farhud Shams, Andy Man Yeung Tai, Jane Kim, M C Boyd, Maximilian Meyer, Alireza Kazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMeta-analysisMeta-regressionMedicineIntervention (counseling)Systematic reviewMEDLINERegression analysisClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Substance use disorders affect 36 million people globally, but only a small proportion of them receive the necessary treatment. E-health interventions have been developed to address this issue by improving access to substance use treatment. However, concerns about participant engagement and adherence to these interventions remain. This review aimed to evaluate adherence to e-health interventions targeting substance use and identify hypothesized predictors of adherence. Methods: A systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2020 was conducted, and data on adherence measures and hypothesized predictors were extracted. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to analyze the data. The two adherence measures were (a) the mean proportion of modules completed across the intervention groups and (b) the proportion of participants that completed all modules. Four meta-regression models assessed each covariate including guidance, blended treatment, intervention duration and recruitment strategy. Results: The overall pooled adherence rate was 0.60 (95%-CI: 0.52-0.67) for the mean proportion of modules completed across 30 intervention arms and 0.47 (95%-CI: 0.35-0.59) for the proportion of participants that completed all modules across 9 intervention arms. Guidance, blended treatment, and recruitment were significant predictors of adherence, while treatment duration was not. Conclusion: The study suggests that more research is needed to identify predictors of adherence, in order to determine specific aspects that contribute to better exposure to intervention content. Reporting adherence and predictors in future studies can lead to improved meta-analyses and the development of more engaging interventions. Identifying predictors can aid in designing effective interventions for substance use disorders, with important implications for e-health interventions targeting substance use.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.061
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.046 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207