Table 4.
Feasibility of the interventions including acceptability, implementation, and intervention efficacy.
| Intervention type, reference | Acceptabilitya | Implementationb | Efficacyc | |||
|
|
|
Frequency of use | Issues |
|
||
| Communication technologies | ||||||
|
|
Thompson et al [42], 2020 | High | High | In all, 33% (1/3) participants discontinued the use of the app | The intervention group presented lower odds of drinking alcohol (ORd=0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.64; P=.01) and having unprotected sex (OR=0.15, CI 0.03-0.85; P=.03) than the treatment as usual group, but no significant difference for use of marijuana (OR=0.39, CI 0.07-2.33; P=.30). | |
|
|
Schueller et al [19], 2019 | Moderate to high | Moderate to high | Mobile service provider, phone replacement, and exceeding the data limit | Very little improvements in clinical outcomes with small effect sizes for symptoms of depression (Cohen d=0.27), posttraumatic stress disorder (Cohen d=0.17), and emotion regulation (Cohen d=0.10); all P>.50. | |
|
|
Glover et al [40], 2019 | High | Moderate to low | 23% (23/100) phone replacement | Unavailable | |
|
|
Sheoran et al [41], 2016 | High | Unavailable | Details unavailable | Unavailable | |
|
|
Chao et al [36], 2017 | Unavailable | Unavailable | Details unavailable | Intervention group showed significantly reduced use of marijuana (P<.05 ;from Chao et al [36]—poster) | |
|
|
Karnik et al [46], 2017 | High | High | Phone replacement | Unavailable | |
|
|
Leonard et al [43], 2018 | High | Moderate to high | Technical | Unavailablee | |
|
|
Leonard et al [43], 2018 | Moderate | Moderate | Phone charging and social issues (embarrassment) | Unavailablee | |
|
|
Linnemayr et alf [38], 2021 | High | Moderate | Changed phone number, phone stolen, and bad reception | Unavailable | |
|
|
Tucker et alf [39], 2020 | Moderate to high | High | Keeping the phone charged | Unavailable | |
| Other information and communication technologies | ||||||
|
|
Medalia et al [45], 2017 | Unavailable | Unavailable | Sessions took longer than expected | Significant effect on cognitive (verbal memory: F2,89=20.28; P<.0001), processing speed (F2,89=9.35; P=.0002), executive functioning (F2,89=22.26; P<.0001), attention (F2,89=3.67; P=.03), global cognition (F2,89=39.89; P<.0001), and psychological functioning (F2,89=11.21; P<.00001) | |
|
|
Chavez et al [44], 2020 | High | Unavailable | Trigger seizures concern | No significant differences for anxiety or salivary cortisol measures between intervention (virtual reality meditation) and other groups (audio meditation and virtual reality imagery). | |
|
|
Archie et al [47], 2018 | High | Unavailable | Unavailable | Intervention group obtained significantly greater mean scores on knowledge about cannabis use and harms and psychosis (mean 6.8, SD 1.6 and 5.5, SD 1.9, respectively; P<.05) | |
aAcceptability as perceived usefulness of the intervention by youth and their practitioners, intention to use the technology—high: >80% of participants rated it with a high score or good evaluation; moderate: 30% to 70% of participants rated it with high scores or good evaluation; low: <30% of participants rated it with a high score or good evaluation.
bImplementation or feasibility framework: degree of success or failure of execution, amount and type of resources, and factors affecting implementation ease or difficulty. The feasibility study framework by Bowen et al [34]—high: >90% of allocated participants completed all or >90% of the sessions; moderate: 30% to 90% of allocated participants completed all or >90% of the sessions; <30% of allocated participants completed all or >90% of the sessions.
cPositive or negative outcomes tendency as reported by authors, statistically significant or not.
dOR: odds ratio.
eOn the basis of qualitative methods the study reported that the participants perceived the app helpful in identifying and regulating emotions, and managing stress.