Jonathan Geneva K, Guo Qiuzuo, Arcese Heyli, Evins A Eden, Wilhelm Sabine
Center for Digital Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.
JMIR Ment Health. 2025 May 9;12:e67670. doi: 10.2196/67670.
Integrated digital interventions for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorder have been developed, and evidence of their effectiveness is mixed.
This study aimed to explore potential reasons for mixed findings in the literature on integrated digital treatments. We described the methodologies and core characteristics of these interventions, identified the presence of evidence-based treatment strategies, examined patterns across digital modalities, and highlighted areas of overlap as well as critical gaps in the existing evidence base.
In June 2024, a literature search was conducted in Google Scholar to identify digital integrated interventions for comorbid major depressive disorder and substance use disorder. Articles were included if they described interventions targeting both conditions simultaneously; were grounded in cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, or motivational enhancement therapy; and were delivered at least in part via digital modalities. In total, 14 studies meeting these criteria were coded using an open-coding approach to identify intervention characteristics and treatment strategies (n=25). Statistical analyses summarized descriptive statistics to capture the frequency and overlap of these strategies.
Studies included a range of digital modalities: internet (n=6, 43%), computer (n=3, 21%), smartphone (n=2, 14%), and supportive text messaging interventions (n=3, 21%). Half (n=7, 50%) of the studies included participants with mild to moderate depression symptom severity and hazardous substance use. Only 36% (n=5) of the studies required participants to meet full diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder for inclusion and 21% (n=3) required a substance use disorder diagnosis. Most interventions targeted adults (n=11, 79%), with few targeting young or emerging adults (n=4, 29%), and only 36% (n=5) reported detailed demographic data. Treatment duration averaged 10.3 (SD 6.8) weeks. Internet-based interventions offered the widest range of treatment strategies (mean 11.7), while supportive text messaging used the fewest (mean 4.6). Common treatment strategies included self-monitoring (n=11, 79%), psychoeducation (n=10, 71%), and coping skills (n=9, 64%). Interventions often combined therapeutic strategies, with psychoeducation frequently paired with self-monitoring (n=9, 64%), assessment (n=7, 50%), coping skills (n=7, 50%), decisional balance (n=7, 50%), feedback (n=7, 50%), and goal setting (n=7, 50%).
Among integrated digital interventions for comorbid depression and substance use, there was noteworthy variability in methodology, inclusion criteria, digital modalities, and embedded treatment strategies. Without standardized methods, comparison of the clinical outcomes across studies is challenging. These results emphasize the critical need for future research to adopt standardized approaches to facilitate more accurate comparisons and a clearer understanding of intervention efficacy.
用于治疗合并性抑郁症和物质使用障碍的综合数字干预措施已被开发出来,但其有效性的证据参差不齐。
本研究旨在探讨综合数字治疗文献中研究结果不一的潜在原因。我们描述了这些干预措施的方法和核心特征,确定了循证治疗策略的存在情况,研究了数字模式的模式,并突出了现有证据基础中的重叠领域以及关键差距。
2024年6月,在谷歌学术上进行了文献检索,以确定针对合并性重度抑郁症和物质使用障碍的数字综合干预措施。如果文章描述了同时针对这两种情况的干预措施;以认知行为疗法、动机访谈或动机增强疗法为基础;并且至少部分通过数字模式提供,则纳入研究。总共14项符合这些标准的研究采用开放编码方法进行编码,以确定干预特征和治疗策略(n = 25)。统计分析总结了描述性统计数据,以了解这些策略的频率和重叠情况。
研究包括一系列数字模式:互联网(n = 6,43%)、计算机(n = 3,21%)、智能手机(n = 2,14%)和支持性短信干预(n = 3,21%)。一半(n = 7,50%)的研究纳入了抑郁症状严重程度为轻度至中度且有危险物质使用的参与者。只有36%(n = 5)的研究要求参与者满足重度抑郁症的完整诊断标准才能纳入,21%(n = 3)的研究要求有物质使用障碍诊断。大多数干预措施针对成年人(n = 11,79%),很少针对年轻人或新兴成年人(n = 4,29%),只有36%(n = 5)报告了详细的人口统计学数据。治疗持续时间平均为10.3(标准差6.8)周。基于互联网的干预措施提供了最广泛的治疗策略(平均11.7种),而支持性短信干预使用的策略最少(平均4.6种)。常见的治疗策略包括自我监测(n = 11,79%)、心理教育(n = 10,71%)和应对技能(n = 9,64%)。干预措施通常结合多种治疗策略,心理教育经常与自我监测(n = 9,64%)、评估(n = 7,50%)、应对技能(n = 7,50%)、决策平衡(n = 7,50%)、反馈(n = 7,50%)和目标设定(n = 7,50%)配对。
在针对合并性抑郁症和物质使用的综合数字干预措施中,方法、纳入标准、数字模式和嵌入式治疗策略存在显著差异。如果没有标准化方法,比较各研究的临床结果具有挑战性。这些结果强调了未来研究迫切需要采用标准化方法,以促进更准确的比较,并更清楚地了解干预效果。