Carlon Hannah A, Hurlocker Margo C, Hoeppner Bettina B, Witkiewitz Katie
Center on Alcohol, Substance use and Addictions (CASAA), Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico (UNM), MSC03-2220, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Addiction. 2025 Jul;120(7):1295-1324. doi: 10.1111/add.70019. Epub 2025 Mar 5.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the literature of positive psychological interventions (PPIs) for substance use and addiction recovery from 2010 to 2023, specifically examining intervention characteristics, outcome measurement, study rigor, feasibility/acceptability and efficacy (Prospero ID CRD42023392299).
We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science for peer-reviewed papers in English, published between 2010 and 2023, that applied a PPI to people who used substances or were in addiction recovery. We also manually searched Google Scholar, ResearchGate and reference lists of publications. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of the effects of PPIs from eight full-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (i.e. RCTs with treatment groups larger than 50 participants) that measured positive psychological outcomes (n = 5 RCTs; 12 interventions) and substance use outcomes (n = 6 RCTs; 9 interventions); all other outcomes were presented descriptively.
The systematic search yielded 30 eligible publications across 6 countries (14/30 from United States), that evaluated 36 individual PPIs. Nineteen articles reported randomized studies comparing a PPI with one or more control condition (eight full-scale RCTs, or trials assigning 50 or more participants to the intervention condition) and the remaining 11 were single-arm studies. PPIs varied regarding duration, mode of delivery and content. Feasibility and acceptability ratings of PPIs were positive across studies. Meta-analyses revealed a small, nonsignificant effect of PPIs on positive psychological outcomes [d = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.06 to 0.52, P = 0.12] and a very small, nonsignificant effect on substance use outcomes (d = 0.11; 95% CI = -0.05 to 0.27, P = 0.19). Ten out of 30 (30%) studies received a strong quality rating.
Positive psychological interventions appear to be feasible and engaging, with mixed efficacy, for people who use substances or are in recovery.
本系统评价和荟萃分析综合了2010年至2023年期间关于积极心理干预(PPI)对物质使用和成瘾康复影响的文献,特别考察了干预特征、结果测量、研究严谨性、可行性/可接受性和疗效(国际前瞻性系统评价注册库编号CRD42023392299)。
我们在PubMed、PsycInfo和科学网中检索了2010年至2023年期间发表的、将PPI应用于物质使用者或成瘾康复者的英文同行评议论文。我们还手动检索了谷歌学术、ResearchGate以及出版物的参考文献列表。使用混合方法评估工具来评估研究质量和偏倚风险。我们对八项大规模随机临床试验(RCT)(即治疗组参与者超过50人的RCT)中PPI的效果进行了荟萃分析,这些试验测量了积极心理结果(n = 5项RCT;12种干预措施)和物质使用结果(n = 6项RCT;9种干预措施);所有其他结果均以描述性方式呈现。
系统检索在6个国家产生了30篇符合条件的出版物(30篇中有14篇来自美国),评估了36种单独的PPI。19篇文章报告了将PPI与一种或多种对照条件进行比较的随机研究(八项大规模RCT,或将50名或更多参与者分配到干预组的试验),其余11篇为单臂研究。PPI在持续时间、实施方式和内容方面各不相同。各项研究中PPI的可行性和可接受性评分均为阳性。荟萃分析显示,PPI对积极心理结果有较小的、不显著的影响[d = 0.23,95%置信区间(CI)= -0.06至0.52,P = 0.12],对物质使用结果有非常小的、不显著的影响(d = 0.11;95%CI = -0.05至0.27,P = 0.19)。30项研究中有10项(30%)获得了较高的质量评分。
对于物质使用者或康复者而言,积极心理干预似乎是可行且有吸引力的,但疗效不一。