Cargando…

The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions, presumably targeting automatic processes, are considered particularly promising for addictions. We conducted a meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM for substance addiction outcomes. METHODS: Studies w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cristea, Ioana A., Kok, Robin N., Cuijpers, Pim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5017662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27611692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162226
_version_ 1782452791886741504
author Cristea, Ioana A.
Kok, Robin N.
Cuijpers, Pim
author_facet Cristea, Ioana A.
Kok, Robin N.
Cuijpers, Pim
author_sort Cristea, Ioana A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions, presumably targeting automatic processes, are considered particularly promising for addictions. We conducted a meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM for substance addiction outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases. We included RCTs of CBM interventions, alone or in combination with other treatments, for any type of addiction. We examined trial risk of bias, publication bias and possible moderators. Effects sizes were computed for post-test and follow-up, using a random-effects model. We grouped outcome measures and reported results for addiction (all related measures), craving and cognitive bias. RESULTS: We identified 25 trials, 18 for alcohol problems, and 7 for smoking. At post-test, there was no significant effect of CBM for addiction, g = 0.08 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.18) or craving, g = 0.05 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.16), but there was a significant, moderate effect on cognitive bias, g = 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). Results were similar for alcohol and smoking outcomes taken separately. Follow-up addiction outcomes were reported in 7 trials, resulting in a small but significant effect of CBM, g = 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32). Results for addiction and craving did not differ by substance type, sample type, delivery setting, bias targeted or number of sessions. Risk of bias was high or uncertain in most trials, for most criteria considered. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant inverse relationships between risk of bias and effect sizes for addiction outcomes and craving. The relationship between cognitive bias and respectively addiction ESs was not significant. There was consistent evidence of publication bias in the form of funnel plot asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Our results cast serious doubts on the clinical utility of CBM interventions for addiction problems, but sounder methodological trials are necessary before this issue can be settled. We found no indication that positive effects on biases translate into effects on addiction outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5017662
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50176622016-09-27 The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis Cristea, Ioana A. Kok, Robin N. Cuijpers, Pim PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions, presumably targeting automatic processes, are considered particularly promising for addictions. We conducted a meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM for substance addiction outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases. We included RCTs of CBM interventions, alone or in combination with other treatments, for any type of addiction. We examined trial risk of bias, publication bias and possible moderators. Effects sizes were computed for post-test and follow-up, using a random-effects model. We grouped outcome measures and reported results for addiction (all related measures), craving and cognitive bias. RESULTS: We identified 25 trials, 18 for alcohol problems, and 7 for smoking. At post-test, there was no significant effect of CBM for addiction, g = 0.08 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.18) or craving, g = 0.05 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.16), but there was a significant, moderate effect on cognitive bias, g = 0.60 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). Results were similar for alcohol and smoking outcomes taken separately. Follow-up addiction outcomes were reported in 7 trials, resulting in a small but significant effect of CBM, g = 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.32). Results for addiction and craving did not differ by substance type, sample type, delivery setting, bias targeted or number of sessions. Risk of bias was high or uncertain in most trials, for most criteria considered. Meta-regression analyses revealed significant inverse relationships between risk of bias and effect sizes for addiction outcomes and craving. The relationship between cognitive bias and respectively addiction ESs was not significant. There was consistent evidence of publication bias in the form of funnel plot asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Our results cast serious doubts on the clinical utility of CBM interventions for addiction problems, but sounder methodological trials are necessary before this issue can be settled. We found no indication that positive effects on biases translate into effects on addiction outcomes. Public Library of Science 2016-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5017662/ /pubmed/27611692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162226 Text en © 2016 Cristea et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cristea, Ioana A.
Kok, Robin N.
Cuijpers, Pim
The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title_full The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title_short The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort effectiveness of cognitive bias modification interventions for substance addictions: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5017662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27611692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162226
work_keys_str_mv AT cristeaioanaa theeffectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis
AT kokrobinn theeffectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis
AT cuijperspim theeffectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis
AT cristeaioanaa effectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis
AT kokrobinn effectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis
AT cuijperspim effectivenessofcognitivebiasmodificationinterventionsforsubstanceaddictionsametaanalysis