Cited by 118Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Comparison of a smartphone app for alcohol use disorders with an Internet-based intervention plus bibliotherapy: a pilot study

Open access
Gonzalez, Vivian M., Dulin, Patrick L.·2015·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To date, no research has evaluated the efficacy of a stand-alone, smartphone-based intervention for individuals with an alcohol use disorder. The current pilot study evaluated the short-term outcomes of a smartphone-based intervention for alcohol use disorders compared with an Internet-based brief motivational intervention plus bibliotherapy. METHOD: Adults (18 to 45 years old) with an alcohol use disorder received either the Location-Based Monitoring and Intervention for Alcohol Use Disorders (LBMI-A; n = 28), a smartphone-based intervention, or the online Drinker's Check-up plus bibliotherapy (DCU + bib; n = 26). These groups were compared using the Timeline Followback interview for percent days abstinent (PDA), percent heavy drinking days (PHDD), and drinks per week (DPW) from baseline to 6 weeks after the introduction of the interventions. RESULTS: Multilevel models revealed that the LBMI-A resulted in a significant increase in PDA over the course of the study, whereas the DCU + bib did not. Effect sizes for change from baseline for PDA suggest that the DCU + bib resulted in moderate a decrease, whereas the LBMI-A resulted in a large increase in PDA. Both interventions resulted in significant decreases in PHDD and DPW. The LBMI-A produced larger reductions in the first 3 to 4 weeks after the intervention was introduced than the DCU + bib. On weeks with greater LBMI-A usage, participants reported less DPW and PHDD. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions resulted in significant decreases in alcohol use over the 6-week trial, which is promising for stand-alone technology-based intervention systems aimed at individuals with an alcohol use disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0038620

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DBCIs have the potential to generate datasets sufficiently large to reliably model and experimentally test mediation of outcomes by engagement with particular intervention components and to statistically control for confounding moderator effects such as baseline motivation levels.

    “DBCIs have the potential to generate datasets sufficiently large to be able to reliably model and experimentally test 34 mediation of outcomes by engagement with particular intervention components and to statistically control for confounding moderator effects such as baseline motivation levels.22,26,35,36”
  • At 6-week follow-up, both groups showed a significant decrease in number of drinks per week and percentage of days of heavy drinking, but the effect was greater for the Location-based Monitoring and Intervention for Alcohol Use Disorders group.

    “For both groups: significant ↓ in number of drinks/week and % of days of heavy drinking, but the effect is greater for the LBMI-A.”
  • At 6-week follow-up, only the Location-based Monitoring and Intervention for Alcohol Use Disorders group reported a significant increase in number of days abstinent.

    “6-week follow-up: Only the LMBI-A group reported a significant ↑ in number of days abstinent.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 118

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 2002 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, research version, non-patient edition. (SCID-I/NP) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  2. Tabachnick B Fidell L 2007 Using multivariate statistics 5 Boston, MA Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education

Authors
Gonzalez, V. M., & Dulin, P. L.
Affiliations
University of Alaska Anchorage (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2015-04
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
335-345
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W1971744924
Cited by
118
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (RC2AA019422)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
alcoholism, smartphone-based intervention, online intervention, bibliotherapy, motivational interviewing, brief motivational intervention, heavy drinking, alcohol abstinence
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adolescent, Adult, Bibliotherapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Pilot Projects, Treatment Outcome, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review