ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Digital health interventions for people who use methamphetamine: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methamphetamine use is increasing and is associated with substantial health, social and economic harms. Despite these harms, many individuals delay or avoid treatment due to personal and systemic barriers. Digital health interventions (DHIs) are a promising avenue for expanding treatment access, however their application for methamphetamine use remains relatively underexplored. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise existing evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and potential clinical impact of DHIs for people who use methamphetamine. Methods: Four databases (Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and Scopus) were searched up to December 18, 2024. Eligible peer-reviewed studies examined DHIs aimed at reducing methamphetamine use and reported outcomes related to feasibility, acceptability, engagement, or clinical outcomes. Data were extracted and synthesised descriptively. Results: Seventeen records (from 15 studies) reporting on 1269 participants (aged ≥18) across six counties were included. Women were underrepresented (180/1,217; 14.8%) in studies reporting gender. Most participants (772/1269, 60.8%) met study inclusion criteria for methamphetamine use; the remainder (497/1269, 39.2%) met diagnostic criteria for methamphetamine use disorder. Thirteen unique DHIs were identified including web-based programs (n=2), text messaging (n=2), smartphone apps (n=6), chatbots or virtual agents (n=2), and virtual reality (n=1). Cognitive behavioural therapy approaches underpinned 8 of 13 (61.5%) interventions, and 8 of 15 studies (53.3%) used randomised controlled trial designs. Most DHIs were feasible and acceptable, with high satisfaction reported. Initial engagement was generally strong but declined over time; dropout rates ranged from 7.3% to 67.7%. Clinical impact was mixed. Some DHIs demonstrated reductions in methamphetamine use, craving or improvements in cognitive functioning and help-seeking, with some sub-groups appearing to benefit more than others. Discussion: DHIs show promise for people who use methamphetamine. While current evidence supports feasibility and acceptability, clinical outcomes are variable. High attrition and engagement challenges persist. Heterogeneity in study designs, measures, and reporting limits comparability. Future research should explore long-term outcomes, hybrid models, and co-designed approaches with a focus on gender and equity. With further development, DHIs may play a valuable role in the broader intervention landscape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.