Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928221›Full record

SynthesisAddiction science & clinical practice2015

Technology-based interventions for tobacco and other drug use in university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amelia Gulliver, Louise Farrer, Jade K Y Chan, Robert J Tait, Kylie Bennett, Alison L Calear, Kathleen M Griffiths

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia GulliverNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. amelia.gulliver@anu.edu.au.
Louise FarrerNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. louise.farrer@anu.edu.au.
Jade K Y ChanSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. chan.jadeky@gmail.com.
Robert J TaitNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. robert.tait@curtin.edu.au.
Kylie BennettNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. kylie.bennett@anu.edu.au.
Alison L CalearNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. alison.calear@anu.edu.au.
Kathleen M GriffithsNational Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. kathy.griffiths@anu.edu.au.
Australian National University · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUniversity students have high levels of tobacco and other drug use, yet they are unlikely to seek traditional care. Technology-based interventions are highly relevant to this population. This paper comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized trials of technology-based interventions evaluated in a tertiary (university/college) setting for tobacco and other drug use (excluding alcohol). It extends previous reviews by using a broad definition of technology.

methodsPubMed, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane databases were searched using keywords, phrases, and MeSH terms. Retrieved abstracts (n = 627) were double screened and coded. Included studies met the following criteria: (1) the study was a randomized trial or a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (2) the sample was composed of students attending a tertiary (e.g., university, college) institution; (3) the intervention was either delivered by or accessed using a technological device or process (e.g., computer/internet, telephone, mobile short message services [SMS]); (4) the age range or mean of the sample was between 18 and 25 years; and (5) the intervention was designed to alter a drug use outcome relating to tobacco or other drugs (excluding alcohol).

resultsA total of 12 papers met inclusion criteria for the current review. The majority of included papers examined tobacco use (n = 9; 75%), two studies targeted marijuana use (17%); and one targeted stress, marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco use. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted on the tobacco use studies using an abstinence outcome measure (n = 6), demonstrating that the interventions increased the rate of abstinence by 1.5 times that of controls (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.54; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.20-1.98). Across all 12 studies, a total of 20 technology-based interventions were reviewed. A range of technology was employed in the interventions, including stand-alone computer programs (n = 10), internet (n = 5), telephone (n = 3), and mobile SMS (n = 2).

conclusionsAlthough technological interventions have the potential to reduce drug use in tertiary students, very few trials have been conducted, particularly for substances other than tobacco. However, the improvement shown in abstinence from tobacco use has the potential to impact substantially on morbidity and mortality.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneInternetStudentsAdolescentAdultHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSubstance-Related DisordersText MessagingTobacco Use DisorderUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25928221
PMCPMC4422468
OpenAlexW2101907138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.