Holistic Health Approaches for People with Alcohol Use Disorder: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a complex, chronic medical disease wherein patients have traditionally benefited from a multidisciplinary and comprehensive therapeutic approach, including a comprehensive treatment plan that addresses the psychological, behavioral, and social dimensions of the individual. Holistic health is a nontraditional system of wellness which focuses on wellbeing through body, mind, and spirit and aims to restore balance through combined physical, mental, and emotional care. This approach may incorporate nonpharmacological and alternative treatment alongside allopathic medicine. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in integrating holistic health strategies into addiction treatment. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this scoping review is to identify and characterize holistic health interventions currently use in the management of people with AUD. A secondary objective is to collate the reported efficacy of these interventions. Additionally, this review will identify gaps in the literature and suggest areas for future research. METHODS: This review will adhere to the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework for scoping reviews. Published research and pilot clinical trials reporting on holistic health interventions in AUD will be included. Five databases will be searched: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. There will be no date restrictions, though only English-language articles will be included. To qualify, studies must include at least one holistic intervention (e.g., meditation, homeopathy, special diets). Excluded studies will include those that do not involve people with AUD and/or hazardous drinking or that only test pharmaceutical treatments without a holistic component. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data with a third reviewer as a tiebreaker; discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. RESULTS: This scoping review was started in Covidence in December 2024 and is currently funded by the National Institutes of Health's Intramural Research Program. The project end date for data collection is September 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide an overview of holistic approaches and interventions used in AUD treatment. It will highlight gaps in the literature and recommend directions for future research. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No ethical approval is required, as the review involves only publicly available literature. CLINICALTRIAL: Registration: Protocol is registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/vw7mz Preprint: This protocol is preprinted in medRxiv and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.04.25328277.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".