Cited by 40Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Technology-Based Alcohol Interventions in Primary Care: Systematic Review

Open access
Ramsey, Alex T, Satterfield, Jason M, Gerke, Donald R, Proctor, Enola K·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS: Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

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 · 10.2196/10859

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramsey, A. T., Satterfield, J. M., Gerke, D. R., & Proctor, E. K.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Ramsey, Alex T
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
e10859
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914140180
Cited by
40
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (UL1 TR000448)
  • Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (UL1TR000448)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000448, TR000448, UL1TR002345)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (TR000448, T32MH019960)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA039776, K12DA041449)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TR000448)
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
technology-based interventions, alcoholism, primary care, digital health, behavioral health interventions, alcohol-related harm, intervention efficacy, implementation strategies, treatment as usual comparison
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Behavior Therapy, Humans, Primary Health Care, Technology

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