ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2026
Comparing the effectiveness of in-person vs. virtual intensive group interventions for healthcare professionals with substance use disorders.
Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual interventions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including intensive outpatient treatment, were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and later maintained in some clinical settings. However, the effectiveness of this type of intervention in healthcare professionals (HPs) has not been studied so far.
methodsThis is a quasi-experimental cohort study with both retrospective and prospective data comparing the main treatment outcomes of HPs in treatment for SUDs: (1) 29 patients following a 40-hour synchronous virtual group intervention; and, (2) 31 patients following a an 80-hour in-person group psychotherapy. They both underwent in-person psychiatric and psychological individual treatment as well as addictive drug use monitoring. Logistic regression analyses were performed to find predictors of abstinence from addictive substances and of working status. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to first lapse (positive addictive drug use monitoring). Satisfaction rates at the end of each intervention were also compared in both groups using a non-parametric test.
resultsThe sample consisted of 60 HPs, with a mean age of 49.5 years (range: 30-67). Of these, 53.3% (n = 32) were women. Physicians represented 53.3% of all patients. Patients in the virtual group were more likely to be working during the intervention compared with those in the in-person group. At one-year follow-up, 55% of the sample remained abstinent from addictive substances. After multivariate analysis, the type of intervention did not predict abstinence when controlling for other variables, although having dual diagnosis was inversely correlated with remaining abstinent (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07-0.85). HPs receiving in-person intervention were more likely to be working one year after the treatment (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 2.1-33.3). Time to first lapse was similar between groups, although the in-person sample showed a more heterogeneous distribution. Satisfaction rates were similar in both groups.
conclusionsVirtual interventions may be an effective alternative to in-person interventions for HPs with SUDs. More studies are needed to more deeply analyze these preliminary findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.