Web-based cognitive bias modification for problem drinkers: protocol of a randomised controlled trial with a 2x2x2 factorial design

BMC Public Health

Reinout W Wiers¹  Jeannet Kramer³  Filip Smit²  Elske Salemink¹  Denise S van Deursen¹ 

[1] Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT)-lab, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, PO Box 725, 3500 AS Utrecht, The Netherlands

关键词: E-health intervention;    Implicit cognition;    Cognitive bias modification;    Alcohol;    Problem drinking;   

Others  :  1162008
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-674

 received in 2013-04-10, accepted in 2013-07-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The automatic tendency to attend to, positively evaluate and approach alcohol related stimuli has been found to play a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by computerised Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM). In spite of CBMs potential as an internet intervention, little is known about the efficacy of web-based CBM. The study described in this protocol will test the effectiveness of web-based CBM in a double blind randomised controlled trial with a 2 (attention bias retraining: real versus placebo) x 2 (alcohol/no-go training: real versus placebo) x 2 (approach bias retraining: real versus placebo) factorial design.

Methods/design

The effectiveness of 12 sessions of CBM will be examined among problem drinkers aged 18–65 who are randomly assigned to one of the eight CBM conditions, after completing two modules of a validated cognitive behavioural intervention, DrinkingLess. The primary outcome measure is the change in alcohol use. It is expected that, for each of the CBM interventions, participants in the real CBM conditions will show a greater decrease in alcohol use than participants in the placebo conditions. Secondary outcome measures include the percentage of participants drinking within the limits for sensible drinking. Possible mediating (change in automatic biases) and moderating (working memory, inhibition) factors will be examined, as will the comparative cost-effectiveness of the various CBM strategies.

Discussion

This study will be the first to test the relative efficacy of various web-based CBM strategies in problem drinkers. If proven effective, CBM could be implemented as a low-cost, low-threshold adjuvant to CBT-based online interventions for problem drinkers.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial register: NTR3875.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 van Deursen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Patra J: Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet 2009, 373:2223-2233.
• [2]Riper H, Spek V, Boon B, Conijn B, Kramer J, Martin-Abello K, Smit F: Effectiveness of E-self-help interventions for curbing adult problem drinking: a meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2011, 13(2):e42.
• [3]Smit F, Lokkerbol J, Riper H, Majo MC, Boon B, Blankers M: Modeling the cost-effectiveness of health care systems for alcohol use disorders: how implementation of eHealth interventions improves cost-effectiveness. J Med Internet Res 2011, 13:e56.
• [4]Robinson TE, Berridge KC: The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2008, 363:3137-3146.
• [5]Gladwin TE, Figner B, Crone EA, Wiers RW: Addiction, adolescence, and the integration of control and motivation. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2011, 1:364-376.
• [6]Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van Den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RCME, Sher KJ, Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW: Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2007, 86:263-283.
• [7]Reich RR, Below MC, Goldman MS: Explicit and implicit measures of expectancy and related alcohol cognitions: a meta-analytic comparison. Psychol Addict Behav 2010, 24:13-25.
• [8]Rooke SE, Hine DW, Thorsteinsson EB: Implicit cognition and substance use: a meta-analysis. Addict Behav 2008, 33:1314-1328.
• [9]Grenard JL, Ames SL, Wiers RW, Thush C, Sussman S, Stacy AW: Working memory capacity moderates the predictive effects of drug-related associations on substance use. Psychol Addict Behav 2008, 22:426-432.
• [10]Thush C, Wiers RW, Ames SL, Grenard JL, Sussman S, Stacy AW: Interactions between implicit and explicit cognition and working memory capacity in the prediction of alcohol use in at-risk adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008, 94:116-124.
• [11]Houben K, Wiers RW: Response inhibition moderates the relationship between implicit associations and drinking behavior. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2009, 33:626-633.
• [12]Peeters M, Wiers RW, Monshouwer K, Schoot R, Janssen T, Vollebergh WA: Automatic processes in at‒risk adolescents: the role of alcohol‒approach tendencies and response inhibition in drinking behavior. Addiction 2012, 107:1939-1946.
• [13]Thush C, Wiers RW, Moerbeek M, Ames SL, Grenard JL, Sussman S, Stacy AW: Influence of motivational interviewing on explicit and implicit alcohol-related cognition and alcohol use in at-risk adolescents. Psychol Addict Behav 2009, 23:146-151.
• [14]Wiers RW, Van De Luitgaarden J, Van Den Wildenberg E, Smulders FTY: Challenging implicit and explicit alcohol‒related cognitions in young heavy drinkers. Addiction 2005, 100:806-819.
• [15]Field M, Eastwood B: Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005, 183:350-357.
• [16]Schoenmakers TM, de Bruin M, Lux IFM, Goertz AG, Van Kerkhof DHAT, Wiers RW: Clinical effectiveness of attentional bias modification training in abstinent alcoholic patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2010, 109:30-36.
• [17]Field M, Duka T, Eastwood B, Child R, Santarcangelo M, Gayton M: Experimental manipulation of attentional biases in heavy drinkers: do the effects generalise? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2007, 192:593-608.
• [18]Schoenmakers T, Wiers RW, Jones BT, Bruce G, Jansen A: Attentional re‒training decreases attentional bias in heavy drinkers without generalization. Addiction 2007, 102:399-405.
• [19]Houben K, Nederkoorn C, Wiers RW, Jansen A: Resisting temptation: decreasing alcohol-related affect and drinking behavior by training response inhibition. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011, 116:132-136.
• [20]Houben K, Havermans RC, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A: Beer à No‒Go: Learning to stop responding to alcohol cues reduces alcohol intake via reduced affective associations rather than increased response inhibition. Addiction 2012, 107:1280-1287.
• [21]Eberl C, Wiers RW, Pawelczack S, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J: Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best? Dev Cogn Neurosci 2013, 4:38-51.
• [22]Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F: Retraining automatic action‒tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction 2010, 105:279-287.
• [23]Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J: Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychol Sci 2011, 22:490-497.
• [24]Houben K, Wiers RW, Jansen A: Getting a grip on drinking behavior training working memory to reduce alcohol abuse. Psychol Sci 2011, 22:968-975.
• [25]Riper H, Kramer J, Smit F, Conijn B, Schippers G, Cuijpers P: Web‒based self‒help for problem drinkers: a pragmatic randomized trial. Addiction 2008, 103:218-227.
• [26]Amir N, Taylor CT, Donohue MC: Predictors of response to an attention modification program in generalized social phobia. J Consult Clin Psychol 2011, 79:533-541.
• [27]Salemink E, Wiers RW: Adolescent threat-related interpretive bias and its modification: the moderating role of regulatory control. Behav Res Ther 2012, 50:40-46.
• [28]Everaert J, Koster EHW, Derakshan N: The combined cognitive bias hypothesis in depression. Clin Psychol Rev 2012, 32:413-424.
• [29]Hirsch CR, Clark DM, Mathews A: Imagery and interpretations in social phobia: Support for the combined cognitive biases hypothesis. Behav Ther 2006, 37:223-236.
• [30]Babor T, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders J, Monteiro MG: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use in primary care. 2nd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
• [31]Riper H, Kramer J, Conijn B, Smit F, Schippers G, Cuijpers P: Translating effective web‒based self‒help for problem drinking into the real world. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2009, 33:1401-1408.
• [32]Beard C, Weisberg RB, Primack J: Socially anxious primary care patients’ attitudes toward cognitive bias modification (CBM): a qualitative study. Behav Cogn Psychother 2011, 1:1-16.
• [33]MacLeod C, Rutherford E, Campbell L, Ebsworthy G, Holker L: Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. J Abnorm Psychol 2002, 111:107-123.
• [34]MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P: Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 1986, 95:15-20.
• [35]Sobell LC, Sobell MB: Timeline Follow-back: A technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption. In Measuring alcohol consumption: psychosocial and biological methods. Edited by Allen J, Litten RZ. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 1992:41-72.
• [36]Kokkevi A, Hartgers C: EuropASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res 1995, 1:208-210.
• [37]Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, FAGERSTROM KO: The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 1991, 86:1119-1127.
• [38]Heather N, Rollnick S, Bell A: Predictive validity of the readiness to change questionnaire. Addiction 2006, 88:1667-1677.
• [39]Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK: Beck Depression Inventory—II, M. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996.
• [40]Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA: Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
• [41]Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van IJzendoorn MH: For better and for worse differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2007, 16:300-304.
• [42]Chunhui C, Chuansheng C, Robert M, Hal S, Qinghua H, He L, Jin L, Bi Z, Qi D: Contributions of dopamine-related genes and environmental factors to highly sensitive personality: a multi-step neuronal system-level approach. PLoS One 2011, 6(7):e21636.
• [43]Aron EN, Aron A: Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997, 73:345-368.
• [44]Petrides M, Milner B: Deficits on subject-ordered tasks after frontal-and temporal-lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia 1982, 20:249-262.
• [45]Stroop JR: Studies of interference in verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935, 18:643-662.
• [46]Cox WM, Fadardi JS, Pothos EM: The addiction-stroop test: theoretical considerations and procedural recommendations. Psychol Bull 2006, 132:443-476.
• [47]Menatti AR, Smyth FL, Teachman BA, Nosek BA: Reducing stigma toward individuals with mental illnesses: a brief, online intervention. Stigma Research and Actionin press
• [48]Sriram N, Greenwald AG: The brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) 2009, 56:283-294.
• [49]British Medical Association: Alcohol: guidelines on sensible drinking. London: British Medical Association; 1995.
• [50]Love A, James D, Willner P: A comparison of two alcohol craving questionnaires. Addiction 1998, 93:1091-1102.
• [51]Breslin FC, Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Agrawal S: A comparison of a brief and long version of the situational confidence questionnaire. Behav Res Ther 2000, 38:1211-1220.
• [52]Rabin R, Charro F: EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33:337-343.
• [53]Hakkaart-van Roijen L: Manual Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness. Rotterdam: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment; 2002.
• [54]Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A: GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods 1996, 28:1-11.
• [55]Scott NW, McPherson GC, Ramsay CR, Campbell MK: The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: a review. Control Clin Trials 2002, 23:662-674.
• [56]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010, 8:18.
• [57]Little RJ, Rubin DB: Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley; 1987.
• [58]Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Tan S, Bouwmans C: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: Methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2010.
• [59]Lamers L, Stalmeier P, McDonnell J, Krabbe P, Van Busschbach J: Kwaliteit van leven meten in economische evaluaties: het Nederlands EQ-5D-tarief. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005, 149:1574-1578.
• [60]Wiers RW, Gladwin TE, Hofmann W, Salemink E, Ridderinkhof KR: Cognitive bias modification and cognitive control training in addiction and related psychopathology mechanisms, clinical perspectives, and ways forward. Clin Psychol Sci 2013, 1:192-212.
• [61]Carlbring P, Apelstrand M, Sehlin H, Amir N, Rousseau A, Hofmann SG, Andersson G: Internet-delivered attention bias modification training in individuals with social anxiety disorder-a double blind randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 2012, 12:66.
• [62]Riper H, Andersson G, Christensen H, Cuijpers P, Lange A, Eysenbach G: Theme issue on e-mental health: a growing field in internet research. J Med Internet Res 2010., 12