I JMIR出版物减少烟酒和非法药物使用的移动应用程序:卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析第一个十年的系统回顾%A steiger,Petra Karin %A O'Donnell,Renee %A Liknaitzky,Paul %A Bush,Rachel %A Milward,Joanna %+迪肯大学心理学院，健康学院，锁袋20000，吉龙，3220，澳大利亚，61 3 9244 6876，petra.staiger@deakin.edu.au %K智能手机应用%K手机应用%K问题物质使用%K成瘾%K系统审查%K mHealth %K生态瞬间干预%K酒精%K烟草%K吸烟%K非法药物%D 2020 %7 24.11.2020 %9审查%J J医学互联网Res %G英语%X背景:问题物质使用的移动应用程序有可能绕过寻求治疗的常见障碍。在第一个针对有问题的烟草、酒精和非法药物使用的应用程序发布十年之后，它们的有效性、使用和可接受性仍然不清楚。目的:本研究旨在对评估移动应用程序干预问题烟草、酒精和非法药物使用的试验进行系统的文献综述。方法:按照推荐指南进行综述。搜索相关数据库，如果移动应用程序研究是一项控制性干预试验，并将酒精、烟草或非法药物消费作为结果，则纳入相关文章。结果:共有20项研究符合合格标准，涉及一系列物质:酒精(n=11)、烟草(n=6)、酒精和烟草(n=1)、非法药物(n=1)以及非法药物和酒精(n=1)。样本包括普通社区、大学生和临床患者。分析的干预样本量从22到14228人不等，内容也相当多样化，从提供自我监测或心理教育的简单独立应用程序，到具有交互功能和音频内容的多组件应用程序，或作为面对面治疗的辅助工具。 Intervention duration ranged from 1 to 35 weeks, with notifications ranging from none to multiple times per day. A total of 6 of the 20 app interventions reported significant reductions in substance use at post or follow-up compared with a comparison condition, with small to moderate effect sizes. Furthermore, two other app interventions reported significant reductions during the intervention but not at post treatment, and a third reported a significant interaction of two app intervention components. Conclusions: Although most app interventions were associated with reductions in problematic substance use, less than one-third were significantly better than the comparison conditions at post treatment. A total of 5 out of the 6 apps that reported intervention effects targeted alcohol (of those, one targeted alcohol and illicit drugs and another alcohol and tobacco) and 1 targeted tobacco. Moreover, 3 out of 6 apps included feedback (eg, personalized) and 2 had high risk of bias, 1 some risk, and 3 low risk. All 6 apps included interventions of 6 weeks or longer. Common study limitations were small sample sizes; risk of bias; lack of relevant details; and, in some cases, poorly balanced comparison conditions. Appropriately powered trials are required to understand which app interventions are most effective, length of engagement required, and subgroups most likely to benefit. In sum, evidence to date for the effectiveness of apps targeting problematic substance use is not compelling, although the heterogeneous comparison conditions and trial designs across studies limit the ability to compare efficacy between apps. We discuss potential approaches that can help ascertain whether the promise of mobile app interventions for problematic substance use can be fulfilled. %M 33231555 %R 10.2196/17156 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2020/11/e17156/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/17156 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33231555