Computerized Relational Agent to Deliver Alcohol Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment in Primary Care: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background Alcohol screening and brief intervention have demonstrated efficacy but limited effectiveness and implementation in real-world primary care settings. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a computerized Relational Agent programmed to provide alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment. We hypothesized that participants in the experimental condition would report greater reductions in their drinking and higher rates of brief intervention and referrals to specialty care compared to those in treatment as usual (TAU). Design This was a Hybrid I implementation design and stratified RCT. Participants were randomized to TAU or Relational Agent + TAU and assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Participants A total of 178 veteran participants were recruited by referral from primary care staff after a positive alcohol screen, or via letter sent do patients screening positive during recent visit. Intervention(s) TAU involved yearly reminders to screen alcohol use and provide brief intervention and treatment referrals, as needed. The Relational Agent added an automated brief intervention, a 1-month follow-up Relational Agent visit, and referral to treatment if needed. Main Measures We measured average drinks per day, drinking days per week, number of brief interventions, and number of referrals over 3 months. Key Results Participants decreased their drinking in both study conditions, with no significant between-group differences on primary alcohol measures. However, Relational Agent + TAU participants evidenced greater improvements regarding negative alcohol-related consequences over 3 months, and were significantly more likely to receive a brief intervention and referral to specialty care. Conclusions The Relational Agent successfully provided brief intervention and referred many more patients to specialty care and was able to intervene with patients with less severe drinking without increasing primary care burden. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02030288, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06945-9.

Factors Influencing Adherence to mHealth Apps for Prevention or Management of Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review

“…Consequently, it can be assumed that hybrid systems that combine automated app content with elements of human support achieve higher adherence rates than those achieved by interventions without human support. Although the ideal ratio between human-computer interactions and sole human interactions in mHealth app interventions remains to be explored, new technologies such as conversational agents show promising results in simulating personal support without the need for human support and may enable increased levels of automation [ 129 - 132 ].…”

Exploring the Perceptions of mHealth Interventions for the Prevention of Common Mental Disorders in University Students in Singapore: Qualitative Study

“…Although university students in our samples generally preferred their friends and family, the intervention can provide an intermediary shield to increase mental health resilience for those in dire need of mental health services and healthy individuals. mHealth intervention with human support may be beneficial as it can be flexibly deployed as a stand-alone intervention or used to notify health care professionals when the current form of support is not sufficient [ 48 ]. At present, most mHealth interventions are typically delivered as stand-alone interventions, unsupported by humans, and not embedded within the health care system [ 16 ].…”

Digital interventions for reducing alcohol use in general populations: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…There were only seven studies that compared digital with face‐to‐face interventions, with a total sample size of fewer than 1300 participants (Cucciare et al, 2013; Gryczynski et al, 2021; Murphy et al, 2010; Nadkarni et al, 2022; Rubin et al, 2022; Wagener et al, 2012; Walters et al, 2009). Given the relatively few trials comparing digital alcohol intervention effects directly with those produced by face‐to‐face interventions delivered by healthcare providers, future research should involve comparisons with no, minimal, and face‐to‐face interventions separately as the use of these comparison groups may lead to differing conclusions as to the effectiveness of brief interventions.…”

“…There were only seven studies that compared digital with faceto-face interventions, with a total sample size of fewer than 1300 participants (Cucciare et al, 2013;Gryczynski et al, 2021;Murphy et al, 2010;Nadkarni et al, 2022;Rubin et al, 2022;Wagener et al, 2012;Walters et al, 2009). Given the relatively few trials comparing digital alcohol intervention effects directly with those…”