Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking : An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials. / Riper, Heleen; Hoogendoorn, Adriaan; Cuijpers, Pim et al.

in: PLoS Medicine, Jahrgang 15, Nr. 12, e1002714, 18.12.2018.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

Riper, H, Hoogendoorn, A, Cuijpers, P, Karyotaki, E, Boumparis, N, Mira, A, Andersson, G, Berman, A, Bertholet, N, Bischof, G, Blankers, M, Boon, B, Boß, L, Brendryen, H, Cunningham, J, Ebert, DD, Hansen, A, Hester, R, Khadjesari, Z, Kramer, J, Murray, E, Postel, M, Schulz, D, Sinadinovic, K, Suffoletto, B, Sundström, C, de Vries, H, Wallace, P, Wiers, RW & Smit, JH 2018, 'Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials.', PLoS Medicine, Jg. 15, Nr. 12, e1002714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714

APA

Riper, H., Hoogendoorn, A., Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Boumparis, N., Mira, A., Andersson, G., Berman, A., Bertholet, N., Bischof, G., Blankers, M., Boon, B., Boß, L., Brendryen, H., Cunningham, J., Ebert, D. D., Hansen, A., Hester, R., Khadjesari, Z., ... Smit, J. H. (2018). Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine, 15(12), [e1002714]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714

Vancouver

Riper H, Hoogendoorn A, Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Boumparis N, Mira A et al. Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine. 2018 Dez 18;15(12):e1002714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714

Bibtex

@article{b05f3653925f45eda743177f1de5a1a1,
title = "Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials.",
abstract = "Background: Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). Methods and findings: Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI −7.57 to −2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63–2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06–6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21–2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: −6.78 SUs, 95% CI −12.11 to −1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22–4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: −9.27 SUs, 95% CI −13.97 to −4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13–6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.",
keywords = "Health sciences, Psychology",
author = "Heleen Riper and Adriaan Hoogendoorn and Pim Cuijpers and Eirini Karyotaki and Nikolaos Boumparis and Adriana Mira and Gerhard Andersson and Anne Berman and Nicolas Bertholet and Gallus Bischof and Matthijs Blankers and Brigitte Boon and Leif Bo{\ss} and H{\aa}var Brendryen and John Cunningham and Ebert, {David Daniel} and Anders Hansen and Reid Hester and Zarnie Khadjesari and Jeannet Kramer and Elizabeth Murray and Marloes Postel and Daniela Schulz and Kristina Sinadinovic and Brian Suffoletto and Christopher Sundstr{\"o}m and {de Vries}, Hein and Paul Wallace and Wiers, {Reinout W.} and Smit, {Johannes H.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 Riper et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "18",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
journal = "PLoS Medicine",
issn = "1549-1277",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness and treatment moderators of internet interventions for adult problem drinking

T2 - An individual patient data meta-analysis of 19 randomised controlled trials.

AU - Riper, Heleen

AU - Hoogendoorn, Adriaan

AU - Cuijpers, Pim

AU - Karyotaki, Eirini

AU - Boumparis, Nikolaos

AU - Mira, Adriana

AU - Andersson, Gerhard

AU - Berman, Anne

AU - Bertholet, Nicolas

AU - Bischof, Gallus

AU - Blankers, Matthijs

AU - Boon, Brigitte

AU - Boß, Leif

AU - Brendryen, Håvar

AU - Cunningham, John

AU - Ebert, David Daniel

AU - Hansen, Anders

AU - Hester, Reid

AU - Khadjesari, Zarnie

AU - Kramer, Jeannet

AU - Murray, Elizabeth

AU - Postel, Marloes

AU - Schulz, Daniela

AU - Sinadinovic, Kristina

AU - Suffoletto, Brian

AU - Sundström, Christopher

AU - de Vries, Hein

AU - Wallace, Paul

AU - Wiers, Reinout W.

AU - Smit, Johannes H.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Riper et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

PY - 2018/12/18

Y1 - 2018/12/18

N2 - Background: Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). Methods and findings: Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI −7.57 to −2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63–2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06–6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21–2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: −6.78 SUs, 95% CI −12.11 to −1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22–4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: −9.27 SUs, 95% CI −13.97 to −4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13–6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.

AB - Background: Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). Methods and findings: Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI −7.57 to −2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63–2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06–6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21–2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: −6.78 SUs, 95% CI −12.11 to −1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22–4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: −9.27 SUs, 95% CI −13.97 to −4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13–6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.

KW - Health sciences

KW - Psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058887308&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/a08fe54a-e856-3f0f-bc8b-5c8d3bb4871c/

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714

DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 30562347

VL - 15

JO - PLoS Medicine

JF - PLoS Medicine

SN - 1549-1277

IS - 12

M1 - e1002714

ER -

Dokumente

DOI