Prevalence of Dropout and Influencing Factors in Digital Psychosocial Intervention Trials for Adult Illicit Substance Users: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jiayi Li; Xinyi Liu; Xiayu Du; Tingni Mi; Zhihong Ren

doi:10.2196/77853

. 2025 Oct 10;27:e77853. doi: 10.2196/77853

Prevalence of Dropout and Influencing Factors in Digital Psychosocial Intervention Trials for Adult Illicit Substance Users: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jiayi Li ^1,^2,^3,^*, Xinyi Liu ^1,^2,^3,^*, Xiayu Du ^1,^2,³, Tingni Mi ^1,^2,³, Zhihong Ren ^1,^2,^3,^4,^✉

Editor: Yan Zhuang

PMCID: PMC12513713 PMID: 41072041

Abstract

Background

Illicit drug use has become a significant global public health issue, and digital interventions offer new approaches to address this challenge. However, there is a gap in existing research on the dropout rate of adult illicit drug users receiving digital psychosocial interventions.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the dropout rate of adult illicit drug use following digital psychosocial interventions during treatment and the longest follow-up, as well as its predictive factors.

Methods

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, studies published up to August 27, 2025, were searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Randomized controlled trials of digital psychosocial interventions for adult illicit drug users that reported dropout rates were included. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias risk using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2.0). A random-effects model in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA 4.0) was used for meta-analysis, along with heterogeneity testing, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment. Finally, a moderating analysis was conducted based on the extracted data.

Results

A total of 41 studies involving 9693 participants and reporting 48 dropout rates were included. The mean dropout rate in the intervention group after 18 studies was 22% (95% CI 0.13‐0.36), which was lower than the control group’s 26% (95% CI 0.16‐0.39). High heterogeneity was observed between studies (Q=396.18, df=17, P<.001, I²=96%), and moderating analysis revealed that high heterogeneity in dropout rates was associated with four variables across three major characteristics: (1) participant demographic characteristics: employment rate; (2) participant clinical characteristics: baseline clinical diagnosis and baseline drug use type; and (3) intervention characteristics: intervention frequency. In the 30 studies with the longest follow-up period in the intervention group, the dropout rate was 28.2% (95% CI 0.19‐0.39), comparable to the control group’s 27.8% (95% CI 0.20‐0.37). Extremely high variability was observed between studies (Q=1293.13, df=29, P<.001, I²=98%), and moderating analysis showed that high heterogeneity in dropout rates was associated with 4 variables across three major characteristics: (1) participant demographic characteristics: single individuals; (2) participant clinical characteristics: baseline medication frequency; and (3) treatment characteristics: recruitment method and the degree of digitalization. Additionally, publication bias assessment and sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the study results.

Conclusions

This study explored the impact of digital psychosocial interventions on treatment adherence among adult illicit drug users, revealing complex factors affecting dropout rates through mediation analysis. These findings not only emphasize the necessity of further research but also provide important evidence for developing precision interventions, holding significant implications for both theory and clinical practice.

Introduction

The global issue of illicit drug use has worsened, with 292 million users in 2022, a 20% increase over the past decade [1]. Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug (228 million), followed by opioids (60 million), cocaine (23 million), and others [1]. Illicit drug users face various psychological and physiological problems, including mental disorders, cognitive deficits, cardiovascular dysfunction, and blood-borne infections. The social burden is also high, due to links with crime, violence, and sexual abuse [2]. Treatment is urgently needed, but globally, only about 10% of users receive treatment, a decline since 2015 [1].

Traditional face-to-face psychosocial treatments remain important for illicit drug users but often fail to meet the needs of most patients due to time, location, and social stigma [3]. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development of telehealth [4] and pushed digital interventions from early simple interactions to more complex forms [5]. Modern digital interventions can provide multiple interaction methods via smart devices, such as apps, websites, email, text messages, video, audio, and computer programs. They overcome the limitations of traditional treatments and are valued for their flexibility and cost-effectiveness [6-10], better meeting personalized needs and improving treatment engagement [11]. Meta-analyses show that digital interventions are effective across different populations of illicit drug users [12-14].

However, dropout rates are particularly prominent in digital interventions [15-17]. Meta-analyses indicate that about one-third of individuals with substance use disorders fail to complete treatment [18] and only 48% of early dropouts seek help again [19], significantly increasing the risk of adverse outcomes [20,21]. Methodologically, the relatively high dropout rate limits the completeness of research findings, affecting the validity of results and the interpretation of treatment effects [22]. To improve the accuracy, this study clearly distinguishes three key concepts: engagement refers to behavioral involvement during use [23]; adherence reflects the alignment between actual behavior and intervention expectations [24]; while the dropout rate in this study is strictly defined as participants leaving, being lost to follow-up, or stopping participation before the outcome assessment for any reason. This conceptual clarification both distinguishes commonly confused terms and provides a methodological basis for enhancing the effectiveness of digital interventions, with important clinical implications.

Although the dropout rate is an important outcome indicator of intervention efficacy [25], few studies have examined dropout rates among illicit drug users in digital interventions. A meta-analysis published in 2017 was the first to evaluate internet-based interventions in reducing illicit substance use after treatment and follow-up, but dropout rate was not the focus [12]. Moreover, existing research lacks systematic examination of clinical factors and intervention design, as well as dynamic assessment of dropout patterns at different time points [26-28], directly limiting the optimization of targeted intervention strategies.

Based on current research, this study aims to address the gap in dropout rate research in digital interventions. The study compared average dropout rates between the digital intervention and control groups to assess treatment retention under different experimental conditions. It also analyzed how variables at posttreatment and the longest follow-up time points affected dropout rates in the intervention group to support personalized intervention design for different research stages. These findings are important for advancing academic research and expanding clinical applications [29].

Methods

Protocol Registration

This study strictly adheres to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Interventions [30] and is reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines [31] (the complete PRISMA checklist is available in Checklist 1). The research protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO system: CRD42024534389.

Search Strategy

To comprehensively and systematically collect relevant literature, this study searched five major databases up to August 27, 2025, including Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH terms) and free-text keywords using Boolean operators (“AND” and “OR”). The main search terms included the following: (“digital intervention” OR “internet intervention” OR “e-health” OR “m-health”) AND (“drug abuse” OR “substance use disorder” OR “illicit drugs”) AND (“psychotherapy” OR “psychoeducation” OR “psychodynamic”) AND (“randomized controlled trial” OR “single blind procedure” OR “random sample”). The complete search strategy for each database is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Individuals aged 18 years and above with illicit drug use behavior. Illicit drugs refer to controlled substances used for nonmedical or nonscientific purposes, including but not limited to cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and opioids [1]. (2) Digital psychosocial intervention is the primary treatment. Operationally defined as structured psychological intervention primarily delivered through digital platforms, including mobile applications, web-based programs, or digital communication tools, with or without minimal human support. (3) The article must report sample size and dropout rates. (4) Randomized controlled trials. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) treatment involving only face-to-face therapy. (2) mixed samples with insufficient proportion of illicit drug users (less than 80%) or without independent subgroup data (eg, alcohol and tobacco users). (3) non-English studies. (4) unpublished reports, study protocols, meta-analyses, reviews, doctoral theses, or other gray literature.

To ensure the accuracy of literature screening, a dual-screening process was adopted. First, two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved literature to exclude those clearly not meeting inclusion criteria. Subsequently, the full texts of the literature were reviewed for further evaluation. Finally, manual searches were conducted on the reference lists of included studies and related reviews to identify additional studies meeting inclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Select Variables and Data Extraction

Outcome Variable

This study uses the dropout rate from randomized controlled trials as the primary outcome measure. Considering that the influencing factors at different treatment stages may vary [3,32-34,undefined,undefined], the dropout rate data of the intervention and control groups at the end of treatment and at the longest follow-up time were extracted separately.

Moderator Variables

Previous studies have explored the factors influencing dropout among illegal drug users [35], but due to differences in confounding variable control methods and insufficient understanding of the complexity of predictive factors, the results have been inconsistent [32]. Withdrawal from treatment is a dynamic process, and its mechanisms involve complex interactions of multiple factors [36]. It is difficult to fully explain the complexity of single-variable analysis [22]. Therefore, this study refers to previous research [37] and selects multidimensional variables (Table 1): (1) Demographic characteristics of participants: most studies emphasize the role of patient-related variables in predicting dropout [38,39], and investigating individual differences (such as age, gender, race, digital literacy, etc.) is crucial for developing treatment interventions for specific populations [16]. (2) Baseline clinical characteristics of participants, including the type of illegal drug use, medication patterns, frequency of use, duration of use, and comorbid conditions. Different drugs may have differentiated effects on dropout rates due to their unique pharmacological mechanisms and withdrawal characteristics [40]. Additionally, the presence of comorbid mental disorders may exacerbate the likelihood of treatment interruption [41], which also needs to be considered. (3) Therapist characteristics: the therapeutic orientation and experience level of therapists may be related to patient adherence [42]. Compared to busy clinic staff, full-time therapists are more likely to invest time and effort to retain and reengage patients who have discontinued treatment [32]. (4) Treatment characteristics: referring to the framework proposed by Derubeis et al [43], which focuses on all factors that improve treatment and particularly on the relationship between treatment factors and outcomes. For example, this study extracted personalized feedback, real-time interaction, and therapeutic alliance. The optimization of these modifiable operational variables can directly enhance intervention effectiveness and improve patient treatment adherence [44].

Table 1. Predictor variables.

Predictor category	Variable category	Variable	Data note
Demographic characteristics of participants	Continuous variable	Year	Publication year
		N^a	Number of participants
		Age	Mean years
		Female	Percentage
		White	Percentage
		African American	Percentage
		Education	≦High school degree (%)
		Employed^b	Percentage
		Unemployed^b	Percentage
		Single/never married	Percentage
		Currently single	Percentage
		Married/living together	Percentage
	Classified variable	Developed country^c	Y^d^, N^e
		Low income	Y, NR^f
Baseline clinical characteristics of participants	Continuous variable	Diagnostic	Percentage
		Use quantity-pre	Mean percentage of substance use quantity in the past 30 days
		Use frequency-pre	Mean percentage of substance use frequency in the past 30 days
		Use length-pre	Mean length of substance use in years at intake
		Abstinence	Percentage
	Classified variable	Inclusion criteria	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) diagnosis, Other
		Comorbid HIV	Y, N
		Primary drug use	Cocaine, Opioids, Cannabis, ATS^g^, Other
Therapist characteristics	Classified variable	Master	Y, NR
		Relevant experience	Y, NR
		Train	Y, NR
		Supervision	Y, NR
Treatment characteristics	Continuous variable	Session	Number of weekly sessions
		Intervention duration	Number of weeks
		The longest follow-up	Number of weeks
	Classified variable	Recruitment	Website, Clinic, Community, Campus, Multiple
		Compensation mode	Gift certificate, USD^h
		Compensationⁱ	Stepped^j, NR
		Measurement	Self-report, Toxicology, Both
		Toxicology	Y, N
		Guidance	Guided, Unguided
		Personalized feedback/intervention	Y, NR
		Real-time interaction	Y, NR
		Setting	Anywhere, Laboratory
		Delivery	Computer, Telephone
		Digital media	App, Website
		Digital presentation mode	Video, Virtual character
		Fully digital	Y, N, NR
		Assessing digital quality	Y, NR

Open in a new tab

N: Number.

“Employed” and “Unemployed”: Not complementary, they were extracted separately from different studies. We extracted only based on the study reports and did not perform back-extrapolation calculations.

Developed country: According to the World Health Organization.

Y: Yes.

N: No.

NR: Not reported.

ATS: Amphetamine-type stimulants.

USD: Use USD as experimental compensation.

ⁱ

Compensation: Refers to the monetary or nonmonetary rewards provided to study participants for their time and effort.

Stepped: Refers to a structured payment approach where participants receive partial rewards at different stages (eg, time-based or task-completion).

Data Extraction

Two researchers independently extracted data using a predesigned data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third researcher. This data extraction form has been piloted in some studies and adjusted according to the recommendations and structured framework of the GRADE manual. For articles that met the inclusion criteria but lacked important data, we contacted the corresponding author via email, and studies that could not provide sufficient data to calculate effect sizes were excluded.

Quality Assessment

To assess the bias risk of the included studies, two researchers independently scored each study in five aspects using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool ROB 2.0 [45]: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Statistical Analysis and Software

We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA 4.0) to synthesize dropout rates across studies [46]. For each trial, dropout counts and total sample sizes were extracted separately for the intervention and control groups, from which group-specific dropout proportions were calculated. To stabilize variances and account for the bounded nature of proportions, these proportions were transformed into logit event rates with corresponding standard errors, which served as the primary effect size metric. Pooled estimates were calculated separately for intervention and control groups and subsequently back-transformed into raw proportions and expressed as percentages for interpretability, an approach that has been widely applied in meta-analyses of proportion-type outcomes [47]. Subsequently, between-study heterogeneity was examined using the Q statistic [48,49] and quantified with the I² statistic [50]. Given the significant heterogeneity among included studies in outcome measures and moderators [51,52], all analyses were conducted under a random-effects model [53]. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Egger’s, Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill, and Classic fail-safe N tests [54], while sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results. To explore potential influencing factors, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were further employed to examine the association between moderators in the intervention group and dropout rate.

Results

Characteristics of the Included Studies

After screening relevant articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 41 studies were finally included (see Figure 1), involving 9693 participants with an age range of 19 to 50 years. The selection characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 2. The studies included 82 intervention groups, with a total of 48 dropout rate data points, including 18 posttreatment dropout rates and 30 follow-up dropout rates, showing different data results between the two measurement points.

Table 2. Selected characteristics of included studies.

Author (year)	Country	N^a	Recruitment	Primary substance	Intervention type	Age, M (SD)	F (%)	Intervention duration (wk）	Sessions	The longest follow-up (wk)
Aharonovich (2012)[55]	USA	40	Clinic	Cocaine/crack (75.8%)	MI^b+BI^c	45.5 (6.6)	24.2	8	7.00	NR^d
Aharonovich (2017a)[56]	USA	240	Clinic	Any	MI+BI	46.5 (9.3)	16.3	8.57	7.00	48
Aharonovich (2017b)[57]	USA	47	Multiple	Crack (91.49%)	MI+BI	50.9 (7.0)	23.4	8.57	7.00	NR
Baumgartner (2021)[58]	Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Other (0.7%)	575	Website	Cannabis (100%)	CBT^e+MI+BI	28.3 (7.9)	29.4	6	NR	12
Blow (2017)[59]	USA	780	Clinic	Cannabis (91.1%)	MI	31.2 (10.9)	55.5	1	1.00	12
Bonar (2022)[60]	USA	149	Website	Cannabis (100%)	CBT+MI	21 (2.2)	55.7	8	7.00	24
Bonar (2023)[61]	USA	58	Clinic	Cannabis (100%)	MI	21.5 (2.4)	65.5	4	7.00	12
Brooks (2010)[62]	USA	28	Clinic	Cocaine	CRA^f	43.1 (9.2)	55	8	3.00	10
Buckner (2020)[63]	USA	63	Campus	cannabis	BI	19.1 (1.5)	84.1	64	1	2
Budney (2011)[64]	USA	38	Community	Cannabis (100%)	MET^g+ CBT+CM^h	32.8 (9.7)	47.1	12	1.00	NR
Budney (2015)[65]	USA	75	Multiple	Cannabis (100%)	MET+ CBT+CM	35.9 (10.5)	43	12	2.00	36
Campbell (2014)[66]	USA	507	Clinic	Any	CRA+CM	34.9 (10.9)	37.9	12	4.00	24
Carroll (2014)[67]	USA	101	Clinic	Cocaine (100%)	CBT	41.9 (9.6)	60.4	8	7.00	24
Chopra (2009)[68]	USA	120	Community	Opioid (100%)	CRA+CM	31.8 (10.5)	42.5	12	3.00	NR
Christensen (2014)[69]	USA	170	Multiple	Opioid (100%)	CRA+CM	34.3 (10.8)	45.9	12	3.00	NR
Christoff (2015)[25]	Brazil	458	Campus	Any	MI	24 (5.4)	7	0.14	1.00	12
Chun-Hung (2023)[70]	Taiwan, China	99	Clinic	ATSⁱ (100%)	MBRP^j	37 (10.4)	18.2	NR	4.20	24
Conner (2024)[71]	Canada, USA	781	Campus	Cannabis	BI	21.7 (2.8)	39.7	0.14	1	4
Coronado-Montoya (2025)[72]	Canada	101	Clinic	Cannabis (100%)	CBT+MI	25.2 (3.9)	18.8	6	1	18
Dunn (2017)[73]	USA	76	Clinic	Opioid (100%)	PE^k	39.9 (12.7)	40.8	1	1.00	12
Elliott (2014)[74]	USA	162	Campus	Cannabis (100%)	PE	19.3 (1.2)	52	NR	NR	4
Glasner (2022)[75]	USA	54	Multiple	Opioid (50%), ATS (50%)	CBT	47.7 (8.2)	20	12	7.00	NR
Gryczynski (2015)[76]	USA	360	Clinic	Any	MI	36.2 (14.6)	46	NR	NR	48
Gryczynski (2016)[77]	USA	80	Community	Any	MI	35 (13)	53	1	1.00	24
Gustafson (2024)[78]	USA	414	Clinic	Opioid	PE+BI+MI	37.2 (10.0)	45.2	64	NR	32
Ingersoll (2011)[79]	USA	56	Community	Crack cocaine (100%)	PE	45 (6.4)	51.9	8	0.75	24
Maricich (2021)[80]	USA	170	Multiple	Opioid (100%)	CRA	32.9 (9.8)	45.9	12	2.50	NR
Marsch (2014)[81]	USA	160	Community	Opioid (100%)	CRA+CBT	40.7 (9.8)	25	48	0.54	NR
Moore (2019)[82]	USA	82	Clinic	Any	CBT	42.4 (10.9)	40.2	12	7.00	12
Olthof (2023)[83]	Netherlands	378	Website	Cannabis (100%)	CBT+MI	27.5 (8.5)	30.7	NR	NR	24
Ondersma (2007)[84]	USA	107	Clinic	Any	MI	25.1 (5.6)	100	1	1.00	24
Ondersma (2014)[85]	USA	143	Clinic	Any	MI	26.6 (6)	100.0	1	1.00	24
Schaub (2019)[86]	Switzerland	311	Website	Cannabis (100%)	PE+CBT+MI	33.1 (7.6)	27	6	1.50	24
Schaub (2015)[87]	Switzerland	308	Multiple	Cannabis (100%)	CBT+MI	29.8 (10)	24.7	6	NR	12
Schwartz (2014)[88]	USA	360	Community	Cannabis (88%)	BI	36.1 (14.6)	46	1	1.00	12
Shi (2019)[89]	USA	20	Community	Opioid (100%)	CBT	40.5 (12.2)	40	12	6.88	NR
Sinadinovic (2020)[90]	Sweden	303	Website	Cannabis (100%)	PE+CBT+MI	27.4 (7.2)	32.7	6	1.50	12
Tait (2015)[91]	Australia	160	Multiple	ATS (100%)	CBT+MI	22.4 (6.3)	24	NR	NR	24
Tossmann (2011)[92]	Germany	1292	Website	Cannabis (100%)	SFBT^l	24.7 (6.8)	29.5	7.14	NR	12
Walukevich-Dienst (2019)[93]	USA	227	Campus	Cannabis (100%)	PE	19.8 (1.4)	77	NR	NR	4
Xu (2021)[94]	China	40	Community	ATS (>90%)	PE+ST^m	46.1 (9.9)	22.5	NR	1.00	24

Open in a new tab

N: Number of participants.

MI: Motivational interviewing.

BI: Brief intervention.

NR: Not reported.

CBT: Cognitive behavior therapy.

CRA: Community reinforcement approach.

MET: Motivational enhancement therapy.

CM: Contingency management.

ⁱ

ATS: Amphetamine-type stimulants.

MBRP: Mindfulness-based relapse prevention.

PE: Psychoeducation.

SFBT: Solution-focused brief therapy.

ST: Support.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2.0). Detailed results and percentage plots are presented in Multimedia Appendix 2. The results showed that approximately 90% of the included studies had a low risk in terms of the randomization process (D1), measurement of the outcome (D4), and selection of the reported result (D5). Approximately 55% of the included studies had some concerns about deviations from intended intervention (D2). About 50% of the studies had a high risk of missing outcome data (D3), which is a key focus of our research.

Meta-Analysis Results

Posttreatment

An analysis of 18 studies was conducted using a random-effects model. The main effect results (Figure 2) showed that the mean dropout rate in the intervention group was 22% (95% CI 0.13‐0.36), lower than that in the control group of 26% (95% CI 0.16‐0.39) [51]. However, heterogeneity testing indicated high variability among the studies (Q=396.18, df=17, P<.001; I²=96%). Further analysis revealed that the variance of the true effect size reached 2.02 (logit units) with a standard deviation of 1.42 (logit units).

Meta-regression and subgroup analysis revealed that this extreme variability was primarily due to four variables among three categories (Table 3): (1) Participant demographic characteristics: The proportion with employment rate showed a weak positive correlation with dropout rate (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00‐1.07; P=.03). (2) Participant clinical characteristics: Participants with baseline clinical diagnoses showed a significant positive correlation with dropout rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% CI 1.01‐1.06; P=.01). The dropout rate for those using cocaine as the baseline primary medication (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.31‐12.57; P=.48) was significantly higher than that for those using cannabis and opioid medications. (3) Intervention characteristics: Intervention frequency showed a significant negative correlation with dropout rate (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60‐0.99; P=.04). The other 27 factors showed no significant correlation with dropout rate.

Table 3. Meta-regressions and subgroup analysis in the intervention group at posttreatment.

Predictor category	Predictor/Predictor value	Studies	Coefficient	Standard error	Dropout (95% CI)	z-value	2-sided P value
Demographic characteristics of participants	Employed	6	0.0348	0.0159	0.0036 to 0.0661	2.19	.0288
Baseline clinical characteristics of participants	Diagnostic	12	0.0305	0.0125	0.0060 to 0.0549	2.44	.0145
	Primary drug use	17					.0190
	Cocaine	3	0.6738	0.9478	−1.1838 to 2.5314	0.71	.4771
	Opioid	5	−0.2639	0.8303	−1.8912 to 1.3634	−0.32	.7506
	Cannabis	5	−0.7448	0.5838	−1.8889 to 0.3994	−1.28	.2020
	Other	4	−2.2799	0.9056	−4.0548 to −0.5050	−2.52	.0118
Treatment characteristics	Session	17	−0.2609	0.1266	-0.5090 to −0.0127	−2.06	.0394

Open in a new tab

The funnel plot showed some studies beyond the expected range (Figure 3), suggesting the presence of studies with extreme dropout rates. Combined with Egger’s test results (P<.001), this further confirmed the presence of publication bias. After trimming the 5 missing studies on the right side, the effect size was adjusted from 22% to 33%, still not crossing the clinical threshold. Further leave-one-out analysis showed that 366 unpublished studies would need to be included to make the current result statistically insignificant. Overall, the results indicate that despite publication bias, the adjusted effect size did not exceed the clinical threshold and the leave-one-out number was high, supporting the stability of the study conclusions. Sensitivity analysis also showed (Figure 4) that removing any single study would not change the overall trend.

The Longest Follow-Up

Follow-up analysis of the intervention group was based on 30 studies, with an average dropout rate of 28.2% (95% CI 0.19‐0.39) (Figure 5), while the rate in the control group was 27.8% (95% CI 0.20‐0.37). However, heterogeneity testing again indicated high variability among the studies (Q=1293.13, df=29, P=.000, I²=98%). Further analysis revealed that the variance of the true effect size reached 1.79 (logit units) with a standard deviation of 1.34 (logit units).

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis (Table 4) revealed that this extreme variability is primarily due to 4 variables among three types of characteristics: (1) participant characteristics: dropout rate showed a negative correlation with single status (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91‐0.99; P=.01); (2) clinical characteristics: significantly positive correlation with baseline medication frequency (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05‐1.32; P=.004); (3) intervention characteristics: participants recruited via website showed a positive correlation with dropout rate (OR 5.74, 95% CI 1.85‐17.76; P=.002), while participants recruited via campus showed a negative correlation with dropout rate (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12‐0.66; P=.003); The association between the degree of digitalization and dropout rates varied depending on whether studies with unreported digitalization status (not reported [NR] group) were included. When all studies, including the NR group, were analyzed, the overall model reached statistical significance (Q=28.13, df=2, P<.001), with the NR group showing a strongly significant negative effect (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06‐0.41; P<.001). However, when the NR group was excluded and only studies explicitly reporting “fully digital” or “partially digital” were considered, the results were not statistically significant (Q=0.24, P=.62). The other 32 factors showed no significant correlation with dropout rate.

Table 4. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis in the intervention group at the longest follow-up.

Predictor category	Predictor/Predictor value	Studies	Coefficient	Standard error	Dropout (95% CI)	z-value	2-sided P value
Demographic characteristics of participants	Currently single	10	−0.0528	0.0214	−0.0947 to −0.0108	−2.47	.0136
Baseline clinical characteristics of participants	Use frequency-pre	10	0.1657	0.0576	0.0528 to 0.2786	2.88	.0040
Treatment characteristics	Recruitment	28
	Website	6	1.7478	0.5762	0.6168 to 2.8770	3.03	.0024
	Clinic	12	0.0973	0.5204	−0.9225 to 1.1172	0.19	.8516
	Campus	5	−1.2797	0.4371	−2.1365 to −0.4230	−2.93	.0034
	Community	5	−0.8413	0.6384	−2.0924 to 0.4099	−1.32	.1875
	Fully digital	30
	No	4	0.5442	0.4530	−0.3437 to 1.4320	1.20	.2297
	Yes	3	0.2858	0.6540	−0.9960 to 1.5676	0.44	.6621
	Not reported	23	−1.8401	0.4882	−2.7970 to −0.8831	−3.77	.0002

Open in a new tab

The funnel plot showed some studies beyond the expected range (see Figure 6). Combined with Egger test results (P=.023), publication bias was further confirmed. After trimming the six missing studies on the right side, the effect size changed from 28% to 37% after correction, without crossing the clinical threshold. Further leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that 1244 unpublished studies would need to be included to make the current results statistically insignificant, supporting the stability of the research conclusion. Meanwhile, sensitivity analysis (see Figure 7) indicated that the results of this study were robust and not dependent on individual studies.

Discussion

Principal Findings

This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the treatment retention effect of digital psychosocial interventions among adult illicit drug users. The pooled dropout rate was 22%, slightly lower than the approximately 30% reported for face-to-face psychosocial interventions [37], suggesting potential advantages of digital formats for treatment retention. Nevertheless, the substantial heterogeneity across studies limits the generalizability of these findings. Dropout rates also varied across settings and populations. For instance, adults with co-occurring severe mental disorders and substance use had an average dropout of 27% [95], whereas clinical samples of opioid users showed rates as high as 41% [73]. Beyond dropout, adherence constitutes another key indicator of engagement, with evidence showing that participants completed, on average, 60% of digital intervention modules, and only about half finished the full program [96]. Taken together, these results underscore the importance of considering both dropout and adherence when evaluating intervention effectiveness. Building on this, our moderator analyses further revealed complex interactive effects. To ensure clarity, we retained the classification system established during data extraction, presenting results separately across four major categories of characteristics as well as between short-term and longest intervention stages.

At the posttreatment stage, dropout was significantly influenced by participants’ demographic, intervention, and clinical characteristics. Regarding demographics, unemployment did not predict dropout, whereas higher employment was unexpectedly associated with greater attrition. This suggests that unstable or high-intensity work may interfere with regular participation. In addition, the short-term income from employment may reduce some patients’ motivation for treatment, especially when symptoms temporarily improve, leading them to discontinue prematurely due to “feeling better” [97]. For intervention characteristics, intervention frequency showed a negative correlation with dropout, indicating that more frequent contact may help consolidate behavior change, strengthen the therapeutic alliance, and enhance commitment [98-100]. Future studies should explore the optimal intervention frequency under different conditions [101], balancing treatment intensity with patient burden [102].

The results of baseline clinical characteristics indicated that both baseline clinical diagnosis and baseline cocaine use were significantly positively associated with dropout rates. Specifically, patients with a clear baseline diagnosis were at greater risk of dropout due to challenges such as dependency, withdrawal symptoms, and impaired cognitive or emotional functioning [42]. For this population, the integration of adjunctive pharmacological or behavioral therapies is recommended to reduce dropout [103]. Furthermore, consistent with previous findings [32], participants with baseline cocaine use were more likely to discontinue treatment. Cocaine use disorder is often closely linked to impulsive behavior and diminished adherence [37]. These substance-specific risks highlight the importance of developing differentiated intervention strategies tailored to distinct types of substance use in future research [104]. Nevertheless, the small sample size of drug-use subgroups (k≤5) remains a limitation, which could be addressed through multi-institutional collaborations to expand subgroup samples.

During the longest follow-up, dropout was significantly influenced by demographic, clinical, and intervention characteristics. In demographics, a higher proportion of single participants was linked to lower dropout. This may be related to reduced drug exposure in family environments [105-107]. In addition, single participants with low social support were more likely to continue seeking health information online. Future research could involve non–drug-using significant others in monitoring the intervention process and integrate peer support modules [108]. In clinical characteristics, participants with higher baseline drug use frequency faced markedly greater dropout risk. This finding is consistent with recent studies [109]. For this high-risk group, we recommend the implementation of multistage intensive intervention programs [110], together with the development of immediate-response modules (eg, crisis management tools, real-time consultation functions) to reduce early dropout [81].

In terms of intervention characteristics, participants recruited through websites exhibited higher dropout rates, whereas those recruited from campus showed lower dropout rates. This may be explained by the lack of intensive treatment services typically provided in clinical settings, as well as the relative stability of campus environments [6,111]. Based on this finding, we recommend adopting a mixed online–offline recruitment strategy [112]. In addition, intervention content should be optimized for online recruits [113], including simplifying operational procedures, providing regular reminders, and offering personalized feedback. The study also analyzed the association between the degree of digitalization and dropout rates. During data processing, studies that did not report their digitalization status (23/30, 77%) were categorized separately as a “Not reported” group for analysis rather than being directly excluded. The analysis revealed a significant association: compared to the nonsignificant negative correlation between fully digital interventions and dropout rates, interventions with unreported digitalization status showed a significant negative correlation, while non-fully digital interventions demonstrated a significant positive correlation with dropout rates. However, the reliability of these subgroup comparisons is constrained by the prevalent issue of poorly reported data. When we excluded the “Not reported” studies and repeated the analysis, no significant differences were found between fully digital and partially digital interventions. This suggests that the initial findings were likely confounded by nonrandom reporting bias rather than reflecting true effects, making definitive evaluation difficult. Therefore, these results primarily highlight the urgent need for future research to standardize the reporting of specific digital intervention details in order to more reliably explore the role of digitalization degree and human support in improving retention rates [114].

Research Significance

This study systematically evaluated the dropout rate and its predictive factors among adult illicit drug users in digital psychological interventions, thereby addressing a critical research gap in the field. Unlike previous studies that primarily focused on demographic characteristics, this analysis incorporated multidimensional predictive variables—including clinical features, therapist-related factors, and intervention characteristics—to establish a more systematic theoretical framework. The identification of eight key predictive factors provides valuable insights for personalized interventions, guiding the development of tailored digital tools for patients at high risk of dropout. Optimization strategies derived from this evidence are expected to substantially reduce dropout rates and enhance intervention effectiveness [30].

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, few of the included trials provided detailed information on software quality or reasons for dropout, which limited our ability to assess the reasons why participants stopped treatment [115]. Future studies could combine machine learning methods to predict dropout risk [116] and use participant-centered questionnaires to collect data on perceived barriers. Previous research [117-120] emphasized common reasons for dropout, including technical difficulties, lack of engagement, and perceived ineffectiveness of the intervention. Collaboration with software engineers may help optimize the digital experience and reduce technical-related attrition [121]. Additionally, methodological improvements, such as combining intention-to-treat analysis with run-in phase dropout screening [15,122], may provide more refined methods for managing early dropout.

Second, most of the digital interventions included in the studies adopted limited forms, such as videos, virtual characters, or text messages, and lacked interactive features. Incorporating gamification elements may enhance user engagement [123], especially when personalized to individual preferences [86,121]. Emerging evidence suggests that well-designed therapeutic video games can improve cognitive and mental health outcomes [121], even inducing neurobiological changes, including alterations in white matter microstructure [124-128].

Finally, many studies did not clearly report key methodological details, such as the degree of digitalization or level of human support. Although we conducted analyses including and excluding the “Not reported” category, the lack of such information led to inconsistent findings, preventing definitive conclusions regarding the impact of digitalization on dropout rates. Future studies should standardize reporting of intervention details, including digitalization and human support, to better understand active components and optimize strategies [121,129]. Another limitation is the high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis (I²>90%), which may reduce robustness. Despite sensitivity and moderator analyses, some variability remained unexplained, suggesting pooled effects may not apply equally across interventions, populations, or outcomes. Future research should adopt rigorous methodologies, including detailed reporting, preregistration, data sharing, and large-scale RCTs. Individual participant data meta-analyses can further clarify subgroup effects and sources of heterogeneity, improving generalizability [130].

Conclusion

In summary, this meta-analysis systematically examined dropout rates and their predictive factors in digital psychosocial interventions for adult illicit drug users, aiming to provide a comprehensive picture of the research landscape in this field. The results indicate that both short-term and long-term adherence to interventions are characterized by considerable complexity. In the short term, dropout rates were primarily associated with employment status, baseline clinical diagnoses, baseline primary substance use, and intervention frequency. Over longer follow-up periods, marital status, baseline drug use frequency, and recruitment source emerged as key predictors. These findings suggest the need for further investigation into factors that contradict common assumptions or remain insufficiently reported in the literature, as well as greater standardization in the design, measurement, and reporting of randomized controlled trials to improve research quality. Moreover, more attention should be given to tailoring interventions for specific populations, particularly through the design of intervention functions and modules. Continued exploration in these areas will contribute to better supporting patients’ long-term recovery.

Supplementary material

Multimedia Appendix 1. Search strategy.

jmir-v27-e77853-s001.doc^{(46.5KB, doc)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

Multimedia Appendix 2. Risk of bias.

jmir-v27-e77853-s002.docx^{(294.5KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

Checklist 1. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

jmir-v27-e77853-s003.doc^{(67KB, doc)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Major Program of the National Social Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 22&ZD187.

Abbreviations

CMA 4.0: Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software
NR: Not reported
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
ROB 2.0: Cochrane risk of bias tool

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization: LJY (lead), LXY (equal)

Data curation: LJY (lead), LXY (equal), MTN (supporting)

Formal analysis: LJY (lead), LXY (supporting)

Funding acquisition: RZH

Investigation: LJY (lead), LXY (equal)

Methodology: LJY (lead), LXY (equal)

Project administration: RZH

Resources: RZH

Software: LJY (lead), LXY (equal)

Supervision: RZH

Validation: LJY (lead), LXY (equal)

Visualization: LJY

Writing – original draft: LJY

Writing – review & editing: RZH (lead), DXY (supporting), LXY (supporting)

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

1.World drug report 2024 (united nations publication, 2024) UNODC. [16-04-2025]. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2024.html URL. Accessed.
2.De Crescenzo F, Ciabattini M, D’Alò GL, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1002715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002715. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Rooke S, Copeland J, Norberg M, Hine D, McCambridge J. Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 15;15(2):e26. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2256. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Gainer DM, Wong C, Embree JA, Sardesh N, Amin A, Lester N. Effects of telehealth on dropout and retention in care among treatment-seeking individuals with substance use disorder: a retrospective cohort study. Subst Use Misuse. 2023;58(4):481–490. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2023.2167496. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Proudfoot J, Goldberg D, Mann A, Everitt B, Marks I, Gray JA. Computerized, interactive, multimedia cognitive-behavioural program for anxiety and depression in general practice. Psychol Med. 2003 Feb;33(2):217–227. doi: 10.1017/s0033291702007225. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Christensen H, Reynolds J, Griffiths KM. The use of e-health applications for anxiety and depression in young people: challenges and solutions. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;5 Suppl 1(58-62):58–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2010.00242.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Fleming T, Lucassen M, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Merry S. The impact and utility of computerised therapy for educationally alienated teenagers: the views of adolescents who participated in an alternative education‐based trial. Clin Psychol (Aust Psychol Soc) 2016 Jul 1;20(2):94–102. doi: 10.1111/cp.12052. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Calear AL, Christensen H. Review of internet-based prevention and treatment programs for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Med J Aust. 2010 Jun 7;192(S11):S12–4. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03686.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Titov N. Status of computerized cognitive behavioural therapy for adults. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2007 Feb;41(2):95–114. doi: 10.1080/00048670601109873. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Blankers M, Koeter MWJ, Schippers GM. Internet therapy versus internet self-help versus no treatment for problematic alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011 Jun;79(3):330–341. doi: 10.1037/a0023498. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Côté J, Chicoine G, Vinette B, et al. Digital interventions for recreational cannabis use among young adults: systematic review, meta-analysis, and behavior change technique analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e55031. doi: 10.2196/55031. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Boumparis N, Karyotaki E, Schaub MP, Cuijpers P, Riper H. Internet interventions for adult illicit substance users: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2017 Sep;112(9):1521–1532. doi: 10.1111/add.13819. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Boumparis N, Loheide-Niesmann L, Blankers M, et al. Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200(82-94):82–94. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Riper H, Hoogendoorn A, Cuijpers P, 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 Med. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1002714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 31;7(1):e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Schulte MHJ, Boumparis N, Huizink AC, Riper H. Technological interventions for the treatment of substance use disorders. Compr Clin Psychol. 2022:264–282. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00010-8. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Schaub M, Sullivan R, Haug S, Stark L. Web-based cognitive behavioral self-help intervention to reduce cocaine consumption in problematic cocaine users: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 28;14(6):e166. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2244. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;165(2):179–187. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Oliva EM, Bowe T, Harris AHS, Trafton JA. Datapoints: false starts in psychotherapy for substance use disorders and PTSD in the VHA. Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Aug 1;64(8):722. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300145. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Hedden SL, Woolson RF, Carter RE, Palesch Y, Upadhyaya HP, Malcolm RJ. The impact of loss to follow-up on hypothesis tests of the treatment effect for several statistical methods in substance abuse clinical trials. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Jul;37(1):54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.09.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Morina N, Wicherts JM, Lobbrecht J, Priebe S. Remission from post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Apr;34(3):249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.03.002. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Cooper AA, Kline AC, Baier AL, Feeny NC. Rethinking research on prediction and prevention of psychotherapy dropout: a mechanism-oriented approach. Behav Modif. 2023 Nov;47(6):1195–1218. doi: 10.1177/0145445518792251. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S. Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: a systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):254–267. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Sieverink F, Kelders SM, van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Clarifying the concept of adherence to eHealth technology: systematic review on when usage becomes adherence. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 6;19(12):e402. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8578. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Christoff A de O, Boerngen-Lacerda R. Reducing substance involvement in college students: a three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial of a computer-based intervention. Addict Behav. 2015 Jun;45(164-71):164–171. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.019. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Lin LA, Casteel D, Shigekawa E, Weyrich MS, Roby DH, McMenamin SB. Telemedicine-delivered treatment interventions for substance use disorders: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Jun;101(38-49):38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2019.03.007. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Mogk J, Idu AE, Bobb JF, et al. Prescription digital therapeutics for substance use disorder in primary care: mixed methods evaluation of a pilot implementation study. JMIR Form Res. 2024 Sep 2;8:e59088. doi: 10.2196/59088. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Prochaska JJ, Vogel EA, Chieng A, et al. A therapeutic relational agent for reducing problematic substance use (Woebot): development and usability study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 23;23(3):e24850. doi: 10.2196/24850. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Windle E, Tee H, Sabitova A, Jovanovic N, Priebe S, Carr C. Association of patient treatment preference with dropout and clinical outcomes in adult psychosocial mental health interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatr. 2020 Mar 1;77(3):294–302. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3750. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 65 (Updated August 2024) Vol. 6. Cochrane; 2024. [10-04-2024]. p. 5.www.cochrane.org/handbook Vol. URL. Accessed. [Google Scholar]
31.Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Siqueland L, Crits-Christoph P, Frank A, et al. Predictors of dropout from psychosocial treatment of cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998 Sep 1;52(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00039-8. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Bickel WK, Marsch LA, Buchhalter AR, Badger GJ. Computerized behavior therapy for opioid-dependent outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Apr;16(2):132–143. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.16.2.132. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Markowitz JC. Prevention of relapse following cognitive therapy vs medications in moderate to severe depression. Yearb Psychiatry Appl Ment Health. 2006 Jan;2006:65–66. doi: 10.1016/S0084-3970(08)70065-3. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Marcovitz DE, McHugh RK, Volpe J, Votaw V, Connery HS. Predictors of early dropout in outpatient buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Am J Addict. 2016 Sep;25(6):472–477. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12414. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.McKellar J, Kelly J, Harris A, Moos R. Pretreatment and during treatment risk factors for dropout among patients with substance use disorders. Addict Behav. 2006 Mar;31(3):450–460. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.024. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Lappan SN, Brown AW, Hendricks PS. Dropout rates of in-person psychosocial substance use disorder treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2020 Feb;115(2):201–217. doi: 10.1111/add.14793. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Roos J, Werbart A. Therapist and relationship factors influencing dropout from individual psychotherapy: a literature review. Psychother Res. 2013;23(4):394–418. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2013.775528. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.de Haan AM, Boon AE, de Jong J, Hoeve M, Vermeiren R. A meta-analytic review on treatment dropout in child and adolescent outpatient mental health care. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Jul;33(5):698–711. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.005. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Volkow ND, Michaelides M, Baler R. The neuroscience of drug reward and addiction. Physiol Rev. 2019 Oct 1;99(4):2115–2140. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00014.2018. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) JAMA. 2003 Jun 18;289(23):3095–3105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Hamilton S, Moore AM, Crane DR, Payne SH. Psychotherapy dropouts: differences by modality, license, and DSM-IV diagnosis. J Marital Fam Ther. 2011 Jul;37(3):333–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00204.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Derubeis RJ, Gelfand LA, German RE, Fournier JC, Forand NR. Understanding processes of change: how some patients reveal more than others-and some groups of therapists less-about what matters in psychotherapy. Psychother Res. 2014;24(3):419–428. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2013.838654. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Magura S, Rosenblum A, Fong C. Factors associated with medication adherence among psychiatric outpatients at substance abuse risk. Open Addict J. 2011 Nov 11;4(58-64):58–64. doi: 10.2174/1874941001104010058. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Borenstein M, Hedges LE, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4 Biostat, Inc. 2022. [05-11-2024]. https://www.Meta-Analysis.com URL. Accessed.
47.Barker TH, Migliavaca CB, Stein C, et al. Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Sep 20;21(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Borenstein M. Avoiding common mistakes in meta-analysis: understanding the distinct roles of Q, I-squared, tau-squared, and the prediction interval in reporting heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2024 Mar;15(2):354–368. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1678. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Borenstein M. Research note: In a meta-analysis, the I2 index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies. J Physiother. 2020 Apr;66(2):135–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.02.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e010247. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Evid Based Mental Health. 2014 May;17(2):53–57. doi: 10.1136/eb-2014-101795. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
54.Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Feb;53(2):207–216. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00161-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Aharonovich E, Greenstein E, O’Leary A, Johnston B, Seol SG, Hasin DS. HealthCall: technology-based extension of motivational interviewing to reduce non-injection drug use in HIV primary care patients - a pilot study. AIDS Care. 2012;24(12):1461–1469. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2012.663882. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Aharonovich E, Sarvet A, Stohl M, et al. Reducing non-injection drug use in HIV primary care: a randomized trial of brief motivational interviewing, with and without HealthCall, a technology-based enhancement. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017 Mar;74:71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.12.009. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Aharonovich E, Stohl M, Cannizzaro D, Hasin D. HealthCall delivered via smartphone to reduce co-occurring drug and alcohol use in HIV-infected adults: A randomized pilot trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017 Dec;83:15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2017.09.013. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Baumgartner C, Schaub MP, Wenger A, et al. CANreduce 2.0 Adherence-Focused Guidance for Internet Self-Help Among Cannabis Users: Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 30;23(4):e27463. doi: 10.2196/27463. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Blow FC, Walton MA, Bohnert ASB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of brief interventions to reduce drug use among adults in a low-income urban emergency department: the HealthiER You study. Addiction. 2017 Aug;112(8):1395–1405. doi: 10.1111/add.13773. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/add.v112.8 URL. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Chapman L, et al. A social media intervention for cannabis use among emerging adults: Randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Mar 1;232:109345. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109345. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Tan CY, et al. A remote brief intervention plus social media messaging for cannabis use among emerging adults: A pilot randomized controlled trial in emergency department patients. Addict Behav. 2023 Dec;147:107829. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107829. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Brooks AC, Ryder D, Carise D, Kirby KC. Feasibility and effectiveness of computer-based therapy in community treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010 Oct;39(3):227–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.06.003. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Buckner JD, Zvolensky MJ, Lewis EM. On-line personalized feedback intervention for negative affect and cannabis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Apr;28(2):143–149. doi: 10.1037/pha0000304. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Budney AJ, Fearer S, Walker DD, et al. An initial trial of a computerized behavioral intervention for cannabis use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 May 1;115(1-2):74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.10.014. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Budney AJ, Stanger C, Tilford JM, et al. Computer-assisted behavioral therapy and contingency management for cannabis use disorder. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015 Sep;29(3):501–511. doi: 10.1037/adb0000078. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Campbell ANC, Nunes EV, Matthews AG, et al. Internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;171(6):683–690. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13081055. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Carroll KM, Kiluk BD, Nich C, et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy: efficacy and durability of CBT4CBT among cocaine-dependent individuals maintained on methadone. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;171(4):436–444. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070987. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Chopra MP, Landes RD, Gatchalian KM, et al. Buprenorphine medication versus voucher contingencies in promoting abstinence from opioids and cocaine. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009 Aug;17(4):226–236. doi: 10.1037/a0016597. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Christensen DR, Landes RD, Jackson L, et al. Adding an Internet-delivered treatment to an efficacious treatment package for opioid dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Dec;82(6):964–972. doi: 10.1037/a0037496. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Chun-Hung L, Guan-Hsiung L, Wu-Chuan Y, Yu-Hsin L. Chatbot-assisted therapy for patients with methamphetamine use disorder: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1159399. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1159399. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Conner BT, Thompson K, Prince MA, et al. Results of a randomized controlled trial of the cannabis eCHECKUP TO GO personalized normative feedback intervention on reducing cannabis use, cannabis consequences, and descriptive norms. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2024 Apr;159:209267. doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209267. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Coronado-Montoya S, Abdel-Baki A, Bodson-Clermont P, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a digital cannabis harm reduction intervention for young adults with first-episode psychosis who use cannabis. Psychiatry Res. 2025 Aug;350:116553. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116553. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Dunn KE, Yepez-Laubach C, Nuzzo PA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a computerized opioid overdose education intervention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Apr 1;173 Suppl 1:S39–S47. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.12.003. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Elliott JC, Carey KB, Vanable PA. A preliminary evaluation of a web-based intervention for college marijuana use. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014 Mar;28(1):288–293. doi: 10.1037/a0034995. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Glasner S, Patrick K, Ybarra M, et al. Promising outcomes from a cognitive behavioral therapy text-messaging intervention targeting drug use, antiretroviral therapy adherence, and HIV risk behaviors among adults living with HIV and substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Feb 1;231:109229. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109229. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, Gonzales A, et al. A randomized trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care: outcomes through 12 months. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015 Mar;50:3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.002. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Gryczynski J, O’Grady KE, Mitchell SG, Ondersma SJ, Schwartz RP. Immediate versus delayed computerized brief intervention for illicit drug misuse. J Addict Med. 2016;10(5):344–351. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000248. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Gustafson DH, Landucci G, Vjorn OJ, et al. Effects of bundling medication for opioid use disorder with an mhealth intervention targeting addiction: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2024 Feb 1;181(2):115–124. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20230055. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Ingersoll KS, Farrell-Carnahan L, Cohen-Filipic J, et al. A pilot randomized clinical trial of two medication adherence and drug use interventions for HIV+ crack cocaine users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Jul 1;116(1-3):177–187. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.12.016. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Maricich YA, Bickel WK, Marsch LA, Gatchalian K, Botbyl J, Luderer HF. Safety and efficacy of a prescription digital therapeutic as an adjunct to buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 Feb;37(2):167–173. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1846022. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81.Marsch LA, Guarino H, Acosta M, et al. Web-based behavioral treatment for substance use disorders as a partial replacement of standard methadone maintenance treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Jan;46(1):43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.012. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82.Moore BA, Buono FD, Lloyd DP, Printz DMB, Fiellin DA, Barry DT. A randomized clinical trial of the recovery line among methadone treatment patients with ongoing illicit drug use. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Feb;97:68–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.11.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Olthof MIA, Goudriaan AE, van Laar MW, Blankers M. A guided digital intervention to reduce cannabis use: The ICan randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2023 Sep;118(9):1775–1786. doi: 10.1111/add.16217. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84.Ondersma SJ, Svikis DS, Schuster CR. Computer-based brief intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):231–238. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.003. doi. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85.Ondersma SJ, Svikis DS, Thacker LR, Beatty JR, Lockhart N. Computer-delivered screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) for postpartum drug use: a randomized trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Jan;46(1):52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.013. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86.Schaub MP, Castro RP, Wenger A, et al. Web-based self-help with and without chat counseling to reduce cocaine use in cocaine misusers: results of a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv. 2019 Sep;17(100251):100251. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2019.100251. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87.Schaub MP, Wenger A, Berg O, et al. A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 13;17(10):e232. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4860. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88.Schwartz RP, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, et al. Computerized versus in-person brief intervention for drug misuse: a randomized clinical trial. Addiction. 2014 Jul;109(7):1091–1098. doi: 10.1111/add.12502. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89.Shi JM, Henry SP, Dwy SL, Orazietti SA, Carroll KM. Randomized pilot trial of web-based cognitive-behavioral therapy adapted for use in office-based buprenorphine maintenance. Subst Abuse. 2019 Apr;40(2):132–135. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1569192. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
90.Sinadinovic K, Johansson M, Johansson AS, Lundqvist T, Lindner P, Hermansson U. Guided web-based treatment program for reducing cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020 Feb 18;15(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13722-020-00185-8. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91.Tait RJ, McKetin R, Kay-Lambkin F, et al. Six-month outcomes of a web-based intervention for users of amphetamine-type stimulants: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 29;17(4):e105. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3778. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92.Tossmann D, Jonas B, Tensil MD, Lang P, Strüber E. A controlled trial of an internet-based intervention program for cannabis users. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2011 Nov;14(11):673–679. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0506. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93.Walukevich-Dienst K, Neighbors C, Buckner JD. Online personalized feedback intervention for cannabis-using college students reduces cannabis-related problems among women. Addict Behav. 2019 Nov;98:106040. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106040. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94.Xu X, Chen S, Chen J, et al. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a community-based addiction rehabilitation electronic system in substance use disorder: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Apr 16;9(4):e21087. doi: 10.2196/21087. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95.Bouchard M, Lecomte T, Cloutier B, Herrera-Roberge J, Potvin S. Dropout rates in psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13(842329):842329. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.842329. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96.Shams F, Tai AMY, Kim J, et al. Adherence to e-health interventions for substance use and the factors influencing it: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231203876. doi: 10.1177/20552076231203876. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97.Ramos LA, Blankers M, van Wingen G, de Bruijn T, Pauws SC, Goudriaan AE. Predicting success of a digital self-help intervention for alcohol and substance use with machine learning. Front Psychol. 2021;12:734633. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.734633. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98.Wright I, Mughal F, Bowers G, Meiser-Stedman R. Dropout from randomised controlled trials of psychological treatments for depression in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2021 Feb 15;281:880–890. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.039. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99.Olmos A, Tirado-Muñoz J, Farré M, Torrens M. The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79(52-60):52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.045. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100.Porath-Waller AJ, Beasley E, Beirness DJ. A meta-analytic review of school-based prevention for cannabis use. Health Educ Behav. 2010 Oct;37(5):709–723. doi: 10.1177/1090198110361315. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101.Kampman KM. The treatment of cocaine use disorder. Sci Adv. 2019 Oct;5(10):eaax1532. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax1532. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102.McKay JR. Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2017 May;112(5):751–757. doi: 10.1111/add.13502. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103.Watkins KE, Ober AJ, Lamp K, et al. Collaborative care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: the SUMMIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Oct 1;177(10):1480–1488. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3947. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104.Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT. Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 28;374(4):363–371. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1511480. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105.Nimtz MA, Tavares AMF, Maftum MA, Ferreira ACZ, Borba LDO, Capistrano FC. Impacto do uso de drogas nos relacionamentos familiares de dependentes químicos [Article in Spanish] [06-10-2025];Cogitare Enferm. 2014 19(4) doi: 10.5380/ce.v19i4.35721. http://revistas.ufpr.br/cogitare/issue/view/1843 URL. Accessed. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
106.Siqueland L, Crits‐Christoph P, Gallop R, et al. Retention in psychosocial treatment of cocaine dependence: predictors and impact on outcome. American J Addict. 2002 Jan;11(1):24–40. doi: 10.1080/10550490252801611. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
107.Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Badger GJ. Participation of significant others in outpatient behavioral treatment predicts greater cocaine abstinence. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1994;20(1):47–56. doi: 10.3109/00952999409084056. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108.Abdelraheem O, Salama M, Chun S. Impact of digital interventions and online health communities in patient activation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Inform. 2024 Aug;188(105481):105481. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105481. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109.Palazón-Llecha A, Caparrós B, Trujols J, et al. Predictors of cocaine use disorder treatment outcomes: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2024 May 8;13(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02550-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110.Tofighi B, Nicholson JM, McNeely J, Muench F, Lee JD. Mobile phone messaging for illicit drug and alcohol dependence: a systematic review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017 Jul;36(4):477–491. doi: 10.1111/dar.12535. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111.Fernandez E, Salem D, Swift JK, Ramtahal N. Meta-analysis of dropout from cognitive behavioral therapy: magnitude, timing, and moderators. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Dec;83(6):1108–1122. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000044. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112.Miller PG, Sønderlund AL. Using the internet to research hidden populations of illicit drug users: a review. Addiction. 2010 Sep;105(9):1557–1567. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02992.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113.Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2(2):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114.Ustinova KI, Perkins J, Leonard WA, Hausbeck CJ. Virtual reality game-based therapy for treatment of postural and co-ordination abnormalities secondary to TBI: a pilot study. Brain Inj. 2014;28(4):486–495. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2014.888593. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115.Newman MG, Szkodny LE, Llera SJ, Przeworski A. A review of technology-assisted self-help and minimal contact therapies for anxiety and depression: is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Feb;31(1):89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.008. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116.Chekroud AM, Bondar J, Delgadillo J, et al. The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2021 Jun;20(2):154–170. doi: 10.1002/wps.20882. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117.Andersson G, Bergström J, Holländare F, Carlbring P, Kaldo V, Ekselius L. Internet-based self-help for depression: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;187(5):456–461. doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.5.456. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118.Richards D, Richardson T. Computer-based psychological treatments for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Jun;32(4):329–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.004. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119.Merry SN, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Frampton C, Fleming T, Lucassen MFG. The effectiveness of SPARX, a computerised self help intervention for adolescents seeking help for depression: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2012 Apr 18;344(apr18 3):e2598. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2598. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120.Warmerdam L, van Straten A, Twisk J, Riper H, Cuijpers P. Internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Nov 20;10(4):e44. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1094. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121.Fleming TM, de Beurs D, Khazaal Y, et al. Maximizing the impact of e-therapy and serious gaming: time for a paradigm shift. Front Psychiatr. 2016;7(65):65. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00065. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122.Girard B, Turcotte V, Bouchard S, Girard B. Crushing virtual cigarettes reduces tobacco addiction and treatment discontinuation. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009 Oct;12(5):477–483. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0118. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123.Ackerman SJ, Hilsenroth MJ, Baity MR, Blagys MD. Interaction of therapeutic process and alliance during psychological assessment. J Pers Assess. 2000 Aug;75(1):82–109. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7501_7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124.Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature New Biol. 2013 Sep 5;501(7465):97–101. doi: 10.1038/nature12486. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125.Prosperini L, Fanelli F, Petsas N, et al. Multiple sclerosis: changes in microarchitecture of white matter tracts after training with a video game balance board. Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):529–538. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140168. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126.Staiano AE, Abraham AA, Calvert SL. Adolescent exergame play for weight loss and psychosocial improvement: a controlled physical activity intervention. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2013 Mar;21(3):598–601. doi: 10.1002/oby.20282. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127.Fish MT, Russoniello CV, O’Brien K. The efficacy of prescribed casual videogame play in reducing symptoms of anxiety: a randomized controlled study. Games Health J. 2014 Oct;3(5):291–295. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2013.0092. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128.Botella C, Breton-López J, Quero S, et al. Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: a single case study. Comput Human Behav. 2011 Jan;27(1):217–227. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.043. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
129.Marsch LA, Bickel WK. Efficacy of computer-based HIV/AIDS education for injection drug users. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28(4):316–327. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.28.4.3. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130.Sander LB, Beisemann M, Doebler P, et al. The effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for suicidal ideation or behaviors on depression, anxiety, and hopelessness in individuals with suicidal ideation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jun 26;25:e46771. doi: 10.2196/46771. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia Appendix 1. Search strategy.

jmir-v27-e77853-s001.doc^{(46.5KB, doc)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

Multimedia Appendix 2. Risk of bias.

jmir-v27-e77853-s002.docx^{(294.5KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

Checklist 1. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

jmir-v27-e77853-s003.doc^{(67KB, doc)}

DOI: 10.2196/77853

[R1] 1.World drug report 2024 (united nations publication, 2024) UNODC. [16-04-2025]. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2024.html URL. Accessed.

[R2] 2.De Crescenzo F, Ciabattini M, D’Alò GL, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1002715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002715. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R3] 3.Rooke S, Copeland J, Norberg M, Hine D, McCambridge J. Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 15;15(2):e26. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2256. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R4] 4.Gainer DM, Wong C, Embree JA, Sardesh N, Amin A, Lester N. Effects of telehealth on dropout and retention in care among treatment-seeking individuals with substance use disorder: a retrospective cohort study. Subst Use Misuse. 2023;58(4):481–490. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2023.2167496. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R5] 5.Proudfoot J, Goldberg D, Mann A, Everitt B, Marks I, Gray JA. Computerized, interactive, multimedia cognitive-behavioural program for anxiety and depression in general practice. Psychol Med. 2003 Feb;33(2):217–227. doi: 10.1017/s0033291702007225. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R6] 6.Christensen H, Reynolds J, Griffiths KM. The use of e-health applications for anxiety and depression in young people: challenges and solutions. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;5 Suppl 1(58-62):58–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2010.00242.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R7] 7.Fleming T, Lucassen M, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Merry S. The impact and utility of computerised therapy for educationally alienated teenagers: the views of adolescents who participated in an alternative education‐based trial. Clin Psychol (Aust Psychol Soc) 2016 Jul 1;20(2):94–102. doi: 10.1111/cp.12052. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R8] 8.Calear AL, Christensen H. Review of internet-based prevention and treatment programs for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Med J Aust. 2010 Jun 7;192(S11):S12–4. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03686.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R9] 9.Titov N. Status of computerized cognitive behavioural therapy for adults. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2007 Feb;41(2):95–114. doi: 10.1080/00048670601109873. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R10] 10.Blankers M, Koeter MWJ, Schippers GM. Internet therapy versus internet self-help versus no treatment for problematic alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011 Jun;79(3):330–341. doi: 10.1037/a0023498. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R11] 11.Côté J, Chicoine G, Vinette B, et al. Digital interventions for recreational cannabis use among young adults: systematic review, meta-analysis, and behavior change technique analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e55031. doi: 10.2196/55031. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R12] 12.Boumparis N, Karyotaki E, Schaub MP, Cuijpers P, Riper H. Internet interventions for adult illicit substance users: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2017 Sep;112(9):1521–1532. doi: 10.1111/add.13819. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R13] 13.Boumparis N, Loheide-Niesmann L, Blankers M, et al. Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200(82-94):82–94. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R14] 14.Riper H, Hoogendoorn A, Cuijpers P, 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 Med. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1002714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002714. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R15] 15.Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 31;7(1):e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R16] 16.Schulte MHJ, Boumparis N, Huizink AC, Riper H. Technological interventions for the treatment of substance use disorders. Compr Clin Psychol. 2022:264–282. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00010-8. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R17] 17.Schaub M, Sullivan R, Haug S, Stark L. Web-based cognitive behavioral self-help intervention to reduce cocaine consumption in problematic cocaine users: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 28;14(6):e166. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2244. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R18] 18.Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Feb;165(2):179–187. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R19] 19.Oliva EM, Bowe T, Harris AHS, Trafton JA. Datapoints: false starts in psychotherapy for substance use disorders and PTSD in the VHA. Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Aug 1;64(8):722. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300145. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R20] 20.Hedden SL, Woolson RF, Carter RE, Palesch Y, Upadhyaya HP, Malcolm RJ. The impact of loss to follow-up on hypothesis tests of the treatment effect for several statistical methods in substance abuse clinical trials. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Jul;37(1):54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.09.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R21] 21.Morina N, Wicherts JM, Lobbrecht J, Priebe S. Remission from post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Apr;34(3):249–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.03.002. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R22] 22.Cooper AA, Kline AC, Baier AL, Feeny NC. Rethinking research on prediction and prevention of psychotherapy dropout: a mechanism-oriented approach. Behav Modif. 2023 Nov;47(6):1195–1218. doi: 10.1177/0145445518792251. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R23] 23.Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S. Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: a systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):254–267. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R24] 24.Sieverink F, Kelders SM, van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Clarifying the concept of adherence to eHealth technology: systematic review on when usage becomes adherence. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 6;19(12):e402. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8578. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R25] 25.Christoff A de O, Boerngen-Lacerda R. Reducing substance involvement in college students: a three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial of a computer-based intervention. Addict Behav. 2015 Jun;45(164-71):164–171. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.019. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R26] 26.Lin LA, Casteel D, Shigekawa E, Weyrich MS, Roby DH, McMenamin SB. Telemedicine-delivered treatment interventions for substance use disorders: a systematic review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Jun;101(38-49):38–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2019.03.007. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R27] 27.Mogk J, Idu AE, Bobb JF, et al. Prescription digital therapeutics for substance use disorder in primary care: mixed methods evaluation of a pilot implementation study. JMIR Form Res. 2024 Sep 2;8:e59088. doi: 10.2196/59088. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R28] 28.Prochaska JJ, Vogel EA, Chieng A, et al. A therapeutic relational agent for reducing problematic substance use (Woebot): development and usability study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 23;23(3):e24850. doi: 10.2196/24850. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R29] 29.Windle E, Tee H, Sabitova A, Jovanovic N, Priebe S, Carr C. Association of patient treatment preference with dropout and clinical outcomes in adult psychosocial mental health interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatr. 2020 Mar 1;77(3):294–302. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3750. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R30] 30.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 65 (Updated August 2024) Vol. 6. Cochrane; 2024. [10-04-2024]. p. 5.www.cochrane.org/handbook Vol. URL. Accessed. [Google Scholar]

[R31] 31.Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R32] 32.Siqueland L, Crits-Christoph P, Frank A, et al. Predictors of dropout from psychosocial treatment of cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998 Sep 1;52(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00039-8. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R33] 33.Bickel WK, Marsch LA, Buchhalter AR, Badger GJ. Computerized behavior therapy for opioid-dependent outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Apr;16(2):132–143. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.16.2.132. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R34] 34.Markowitz JC. Prevention of relapse following cognitive therapy vs medications in moderate to severe depression. Yearb Psychiatry Appl Ment Health. 2006 Jan;2006:65–66. doi: 10.1016/S0084-3970(08)70065-3. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R35] 35.Marcovitz DE, McHugh RK, Volpe J, Votaw V, Connery HS. Predictors of early dropout in outpatient buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Am J Addict. 2016 Sep;25(6):472–477. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12414. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R36] 36.McKellar J, Kelly J, Harris A, Moos R. Pretreatment and during treatment risk factors for dropout among patients with substance use disorders. Addict Behav. 2006 Mar;31(3):450–460. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.024. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R37] 37.Lappan SN, Brown AW, Hendricks PS. Dropout rates of in-person psychosocial substance use disorder treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2020 Feb;115(2):201–217. doi: 10.1111/add.14793. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R38] 38.Roos J, Werbart A. Therapist and relationship factors influencing dropout from individual psychotherapy: a literature review. Psychother Res. 2013;23(4):394–418. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2013.775528. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R39] 39.de Haan AM, Boon AE, de Jong J, Hoeve M, Vermeiren R. A meta-analytic review on treatment dropout in child and adolescent outpatient mental health care. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Jul;33(5):698–711. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.005. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R40] 40.Volkow ND, Michaelides M, Baler R. The neuroscience of drug reward and addiction. Physiol Rev. 2019 Oct 1;99(4):2115–2140. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00014.2018. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R41] 41.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) JAMA. 2003 Jun 18;289(23):3095–3105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R42] 42.Hamilton S, Moore AM, Crane DR, Payne SH. Psychotherapy dropouts: differences by modality, license, and DSM-IV diagnosis. J Marital Fam Ther. 2011 Jul;37(3):333–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00204.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R43] 43.Derubeis RJ, Gelfand LA, German RE, Fournier JC, Forand NR. Understanding processes of change: how some patients reveal more than others-and some groups of therapists less-about what matters in psychotherapy. Psychother Res. 2014;24(3):419–428. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2013.838654. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R44] 44.Magura S, Rosenblum A, Fong C. Factors associated with medication adherence among psychiatric outpatients at substance abuse risk. Open Addict J. 2011 Nov 11;4(58-64):58–64. doi: 10.2174/1874941001104010058. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R45] 45.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R46] 46.Borenstein M, Hedges LE, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4 Biostat, Inc. 2022. [05-11-2024]. https://www.Meta-Analysis.com URL. Accessed.

[R47] 47.Barker TH, Migliavaca CB, Stein C, et al. Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Sep 20;21(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R48] 48.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R49] 49.Borenstein M. Avoiding common mistakes in meta-analysis: understanding the distinct roles of Q, I-squared, tau-squared, and the prediction interval in reporting heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2024 Mar;15(2):354–368. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1678. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R50] 50.Borenstein M. Research note: In a meta-analysis, the I2 index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies. J Physiother. 2020 Apr;66(2):135–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.02.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R51] 51.Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R52] 52.IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e010247. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R53] 53.Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Evid Based Mental Health. 2014 May;17(2):53–57. doi: 10.1136/eb-2014-101795. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R54] 54.Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Feb;53(2):207–216. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00161-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R55] 55.Aharonovich E, Greenstein E, O’Leary A, Johnston B, Seol SG, Hasin DS. HealthCall: technology-based extension of motivational interviewing to reduce non-injection drug use in HIV primary care patients - a pilot study. AIDS Care. 2012;24(12):1461–1469. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2012.663882. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R56] 56.Aharonovich E, Sarvet A, Stohl M, et al. Reducing non-injection drug use in HIV primary care: a randomized trial of brief motivational interviewing, with and without HealthCall, a technology-based enhancement. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017 Mar;74:71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.12.009. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R57] 57.Aharonovich E, Stohl M, Cannizzaro D, Hasin D. HealthCall delivered via smartphone to reduce co-occurring drug and alcohol use in HIV-infected adults: A randomized pilot trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017 Dec;83:15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2017.09.013. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R58] 58.Baumgartner C, Schaub MP, Wenger A, et al. CANreduce 2.0 Adherence-Focused Guidance for Internet Self-Help Among Cannabis Users: Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 30;23(4):e27463. doi: 10.2196/27463. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R59] 59.Blow FC, Walton MA, Bohnert ASB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of brief interventions to reduce drug use among adults in a low-income urban emergency department: the HealthiER You study. Addiction. 2017 Aug;112(8):1395–1405. doi: 10.1111/add.13773. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/add.v112.8 URL. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R60] 60.Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Chapman L, et al. A social media intervention for cannabis use among emerging adults: Randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Mar 1;232:109345. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109345. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R61] 61.Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Tan CY, et al. A remote brief intervention plus social media messaging for cannabis use among emerging adults: A pilot randomized controlled trial in emergency department patients. Addict Behav. 2023 Dec;147:107829. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107829. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R62] 62.Brooks AC, Ryder D, Carise D, Kirby KC. Feasibility and effectiveness of computer-based therapy in community treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010 Oct;39(3):227–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.06.003. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R63] 63.Buckner JD, Zvolensky MJ, Lewis EM. On-line personalized feedback intervention for negative affect and cannabis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Apr;28(2):143–149. doi: 10.1037/pha0000304. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R64] 64.Budney AJ, Fearer S, Walker DD, et al. An initial trial of a computerized behavioral intervention for cannabis use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 May 1;115(1-2):74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.10.014. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R65] 65.Budney AJ, Stanger C, Tilford JM, et al. Computer-assisted behavioral therapy and contingency management for cannabis use disorder. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015 Sep;29(3):501–511. doi: 10.1037/adb0000078. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R66] 66.Campbell ANC, Nunes EV, Matthews AG, et al. Internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;171(6):683–690. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13081055. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R67] 67.Carroll KM, Kiluk BD, Nich C, et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy: efficacy and durability of CBT4CBT among cocaine-dependent individuals maintained on methadone. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Apr;171(4):436–444. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070987. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R68] 68.Chopra MP, Landes RD, Gatchalian KM, et al. Buprenorphine medication versus voucher contingencies in promoting abstinence from opioids and cocaine. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009 Aug;17(4):226–236. doi: 10.1037/a0016597. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R69] 69.Christensen DR, Landes RD, Jackson L, et al. Adding an Internet-delivered treatment to an efficacious treatment package for opioid dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Dec;82(6):964–972. doi: 10.1037/a0037496. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R70] 70.Chun-Hung L, Guan-Hsiung L, Wu-Chuan Y, Yu-Hsin L. Chatbot-assisted therapy for patients with methamphetamine use disorder: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1159399. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1159399. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R71] 71.Conner BT, Thompson K, Prince MA, et al. Results of a randomized controlled trial of the cannabis eCHECKUP TO GO personalized normative feedback intervention on reducing cannabis use, cannabis consequences, and descriptive norms. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2024 Apr;159:209267. doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2023.209267. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R72] 72.Coronado-Montoya S, Abdel-Baki A, Bodson-Clermont P, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a digital cannabis harm reduction intervention for young adults with first-episode psychosis who use cannabis. Psychiatry Res. 2025 Aug;350:116553. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116553. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R73] 73.Dunn KE, Yepez-Laubach C, Nuzzo PA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a computerized opioid overdose education intervention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017 Apr 1;173 Suppl 1:S39–S47. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.12.003. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R74] 74.Elliott JC, Carey KB, Vanable PA. A preliminary evaluation of a web-based intervention for college marijuana use. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014 Mar;28(1):288–293. doi: 10.1037/a0034995. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R75] 75.Glasner S, Patrick K, Ybarra M, et al. Promising outcomes from a cognitive behavioral therapy text-messaging intervention targeting drug use, antiretroviral therapy adherence, and HIV risk behaviors among adults living with HIV and substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022 Feb 1;231:109229. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109229. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R76] 76.Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, Gonzales A, et al. A randomized trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care: outcomes through 12 months. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015 Mar;50:3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.002. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R77] 77.Gryczynski J, O’Grady KE, Mitchell SG, Ondersma SJ, Schwartz RP. Immediate versus delayed computerized brief intervention for illicit drug misuse. J Addict Med. 2016;10(5):344–351. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000248. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R78] 78.Gustafson DH, Landucci G, Vjorn OJ, et al. Effects of bundling medication for opioid use disorder with an mhealth intervention targeting addiction: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2024 Feb 1;181(2):115–124. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20230055. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R79] 79.Ingersoll KS, Farrell-Carnahan L, Cohen-Filipic J, et al. A pilot randomized clinical trial of two medication adherence and drug use interventions for HIV+ crack cocaine users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Jul 1;116(1-3):177–187. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.12.016. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R80] 80.Maricich YA, Bickel WK, Marsch LA, Gatchalian K, Botbyl J, Luderer HF. Safety and efficacy of a prescription digital therapeutic as an adjunct to buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021 Feb;37(2):167–173. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1846022. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R81] 81.Marsch LA, Guarino H, Acosta M, et al. Web-based behavioral treatment for substance use disorders as a partial replacement of standard methadone maintenance treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Jan;46(1):43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.012. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R82] 82.Moore BA, Buono FD, Lloyd DP, Printz DMB, Fiellin DA, Barry DT. A randomized clinical trial of the recovery line among methadone treatment patients with ongoing illicit drug use. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019 Feb;97:68–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.11.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R83] 83.Olthof MIA, Goudriaan AE, van Laar MW, Blankers M. A guided digital intervention to reduce cannabis use: The ICan randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2023 Sep;118(9):1775–1786. doi: 10.1111/add.16217. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R84] 84.Ondersma SJ, Svikis DS, Schuster CR. Computer-based brief intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):231–238. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.003. doi. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R85] 85.Ondersma SJ, Svikis DS, Thacker LR, Beatty JR, Lockhart N. Computer-delivered screening and brief intervention (e-SBI) for postpartum drug use: a randomized trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Jan;46(1):52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.013. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R86] 86.Schaub MP, Castro RP, Wenger A, et al. Web-based self-help with and without chat counseling to reduce cocaine use in cocaine misusers: results of a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv. 2019 Sep;17(100251):100251. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2019.100251. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R87] 87.Schaub MP, Wenger A, Berg O, et al. A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 13;17(10):e232. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4860. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R88] 88.Schwartz RP, Gryczynski J, Mitchell SG, et al. Computerized versus in-person brief intervention for drug misuse: a randomized clinical trial. Addiction. 2014 Jul;109(7):1091–1098. doi: 10.1111/add.12502. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R89] 89.Shi JM, Henry SP, Dwy SL, Orazietti SA, Carroll KM. Randomized pilot trial of web-based cognitive-behavioral therapy adapted for use in office-based buprenorphine maintenance. Subst Abuse. 2019 Apr;40(2):132–135. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1569192. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R90] 90.Sinadinovic K, Johansson M, Johansson AS, Lundqvist T, Lindner P, Hermansson U. Guided web-based treatment program for reducing cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020 Feb 18;15(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13722-020-00185-8. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R91] 91.Tait RJ, McKetin R, Kay-Lambkin F, et al. Six-month outcomes of a web-based intervention for users of amphetamine-type stimulants: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 29;17(4):e105. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3778. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R92] 92.Tossmann D, Jonas B, Tensil MD, Lang P, Strüber E. A controlled trial of an internet-based intervention program for cannabis users. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2011 Nov;14(11):673–679. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0506. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R93] 93.Walukevich-Dienst K, Neighbors C, Buckner JD. Online personalized feedback intervention for cannabis-using college students reduces cannabis-related problems among women. Addict Behav. 2019 Nov;98:106040. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106040. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R94] 94.Xu X, Chen S, Chen J, et al. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a community-based addiction rehabilitation electronic system in substance use disorder: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Apr 16;9(4):e21087. doi: 10.2196/21087. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R95] 95.Bouchard M, Lecomte T, Cloutier B, Herrera-Roberge J, Potvin S. Dropout rates in psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13(842329):842329. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.842329. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R96] 96.Shams F, Tai AMY, Kim J, et al. Adherence to e-health interventions for substance use and the factors influencing it: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231203876. doi: 10.1177/20552076231203876. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R97] 97.Ramos LA, Blankers M, van Wingen G, de Bruijn T, Pauws SC, Goudriaan AE. Predicting success of a digital self-help intervention for alcohol and substance use with machine learning. Front Psychol. 2021;12:734633. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.734633. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R98] 98.Wright I, Mughal F, Bowers G, Meiser-Stedman R. Dropout from randomised controlled trials of psychological treatments for depression in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2021 Feb 15;281:880–890. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.039. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R99] 99.Olmos A, Tirado-Muñoz J, Farré M, Torrens M. The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79(52-60):52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.045. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R100] 100.Porath-Waller AJ, Beasley E, Beirness DJ. A meta-analytic review of school-based prevention for cannabis use. Health Educ Behav. 2010 Oct;37(5):709–723. doi: 10.1177/1090198110361315. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R101] 101.Kampman KM. The treatment of cocaine use disorder. Sci Adv. 2019 Oct;5(10):eaax1532. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax1532. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R102] 102.McKay JR. Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2017 May;112(5):751–757. doi: 10.1111/add.13502. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R103] 103.Watkins KE, Ober AJ, Lamp K, et al. Collaborative care for opioid and alcohol use disorders in primary care: the SUMMIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Oct 1;177(10):1480–1488. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3947. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R104] 104.Volkow ND, Koob GF, McLellan AT. Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 28;374(4):363–371. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1511480. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R105] 105.Nimtz MA, Tavares AMF, Maftum MA, Ferreira ACZ, Borba LDO, Capistrano FC. Impacto do uso de drogas nos relacionamentos familiares de dependentes químicos [Article in Spanish] [06-10-2025];Cogitare Enferm. 2014 19(4) doi: 10.5380/ce.v19i4.35721. http://revistas.ufpr.br/cogitare/issue/view/1843 URL. Accessed. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R106] 106.Siqueland L, Crits‐Christoph P, Gallop R, et al. Retention in psychosocial treatment of cocaine dependence: predictors and impact on outcome. American J Addict. 2002 Jan;11(1):24–40. doi: 10.1080/10550490252801611. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R107] 107.Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Badger GJ. Participation of significant others in outpatient behavioral treatment predicts greater cocaine abstinence. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1994;20(1):47–56. doi: 10.3109/00952999409084056. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R108] 108.Abdelraheem O, Salama M, Chun S. Impact of digital interventions and online health communities in patient activation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Inform. 2024 Aug;188(105481):105481. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105481. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R109] 109.Palazón-Llecha A, Caparrós B, Trujols J, et al. Predictors of cocaine use disorder treatment outcomes: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2024 May 8;13(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02550-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R110] 110.Tofighi B, Nicholson JM, McNeely J, Muench F, Lee JD. Mobile phone messaging for illicit drug and alcohol dependence: a systematic review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017 Jul;36(4):477–491. doi: 10.1111/dar.12535. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R111] 111.Fernandez E, Salem D, Swift JK, Ramtahal N. Meta-analysis of dropout from cognitive behavioral therapy: magnitude, timing, and moderators. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Dec;83(6):1108–1122. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000044. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R112] 112.Miller PG, Sønderlund AL. Using the internet to research hidden populations of illicit drug users: a review. Addiction. 2010 Sep;105(9):1557–1567. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02992.x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R113] 113.Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2(2):MR000013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R114] 114.Ustinova KI, Perkins J, Leonard WA, Hausbeck CJ. Virtual reality game-based therapy for treatment of postural and co-ordination abnormalities secondary to TBI: a pilot study. Brain Inj. 2014;28(4):486–495. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2014.888593. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R115] 115.Newman MG, Szkodny LE, Llera SJ, Przeworski A. A review of technology-assisted self-help and minimal contact therapies for anxiety and depression: is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Feb;31(1):89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.008. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R116] 116.Chekroud AM, Bondar J, Delgadillo J, et al. The promise of machine learning in predicting treatment outcomes in psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2021 Jun;20(2):154–170. doi: 10.1002/wps.20882. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R117] 117.Andersson G, Bergström J, Holländare F, Carlbring P, Kaldo V, Ekselius L. Internet-based self-help for depression: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;187(5):456–461. doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.5.456. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R118] 118.Richards D, Richardson T. Computer-based psychological treatments for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Jun;32(4):329–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.004. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R119] 119.Merry SN, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Frampton C, Fleming T, Lucassen MFG. The effectiveness of SPARX, a computerised self help intervention for adolescents seeking help for depression: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2012 Apr 18;344(apr18 3):e2598. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2598. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R120] 120.Warmerdam L, van Straten A, Twisk J, Riper H, Cuijpers P. Internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Nov 20;10(4):e44. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1094. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R121] 121.Fleming TM, de Beurs D, Khazaal Y, et al. Maximizing the impact of e-therapy and serious gaming: time for a paradigm shift. Front Psychiatr. 2016;7(65):65. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00065. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R122] 122.Girard B, Turcotte V, Bouchard S, Girard B. Crushing virtual cigarettes reduces tobacco addiction and treatment discontinuation. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009 Oct;12(5):477–483. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0118. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R123] 123.Ackerman SJ, Hilsenroth MJ, Baity MR, Blagys MD. Interaction of therapeutic process and alliance during psychological assessment. J Pers Assess. 2000 Aug;75(1):82–109. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7501_7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R124] 124.Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature New Biol. 2013 Sep 5;501(7465):97–101. doi: 10.1038/nature12486. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R125] 125.Prosperini L, Fanelli F, Petsas N, et al. Multiple sclerosis: changes in microarchitecture of white matter tracts after training with a video game balance board. Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):529–538. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140168. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R126] 126.Staiano AE, Abraham AA, Calvert SL. Adolescent exergame play for weight loss and psychosocial improvement: a controlled physical activity intervention. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2013 Mar;21(3):598–601. doi: 10.1002/oby.20282. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R127] 127.Fish MT, Russoniello CV, O’Brien K. The efficacy of prescribed casual videogame play in reducing symptoms of anxiety: a randomized controlled study. Games Health J. 2014 Oct;3(5):291–295. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2013.0092. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R128] 128.Botella C, Breton-López J, Quero S, et al. Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: a single case study. Comput Human Behav. 2011 Jan;27(1):217–227. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.043. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[R129] 129.Marsch LA, Bickel WK. Efficacy of computer-based HIV/AIDS education for injection drug users. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28(4):316–327. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.28.4.3. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[R130] 130.Sander LB, Beisemann M, Doebler P, et al. The effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for suicidal ideation or behaviors on depression, anxiety, and hopelessness in individuals with suicidal ideation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jun 26;25:e46771. doi: 10.2196/46771. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Prevalence of Dropout and Influencing Factors in Digital Psychosocial Intervention Trials for Adult Illicit Substance Users: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jiayi Li, MS

Xinyi Liu, MS

Xiayu Du, PhD

Tingni Mi, MS

Zhihong Ren, PhD

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Protocol Registration

Search Strategy

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Select Variables and Data Extraction

Outcome Variable

Moderator Variables

Table 1. Predictor variables.

Data Extraction

Quality Assessment

Statistical Analysis and Software

Results

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study search and selection. DPI: Digital psychosocial intervention; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Table 2. Selected characteristics of included studies.

Risk of Bias Assessment

Meta-Analysis Results

Posttreatment

Figure 2. Forest plot of dropout rate in the intervention group at posttreatment [55-58,61,64-69,72,75,80-82,86,89,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined].

Table 3. Meta-regressions and subgroup analysis in the intervention group at posttreatment.

Figure 3. The funnel plot for dropout rate in the intervention group at posttreatment.

Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis for dropout rate in the intervention group at posttreatment [55-58,61,64-69,72,75,80-82,86,89,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined].

The Longest Follow-Up

Table 4. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis in the intervention group at the longest follow-up.

Figure 6. The funnel plot for dropout rate in the intervention group at the longest follow-up.

Discussion

Principal Findings

Research Significance

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Supplementary material

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Footnotes

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases