ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Digital mental health tools for use by individuals in opioid use recovery: An academic scoping and commercial review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a global public health crisis that has steadily worsened despite significant efforts. Maladaptive opioid use can have significant negative impacts, yet a minority receive evidence-based treatments. Leveraging common personal technologies like smartphones and computers may help extend access to such services. The current study aims to describe the landscape of personal technology use in opioid use recovery by combining an academic scoping review with a review of commercially available smartphone apps and devices. The scoping review provides an overview of research examining feasibility and efficacy, whereas the commercial review investigates whether available technology is supported by peer-reviewed research or regulatory approval. Four databases were searched for the scoping review (i.e., PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) alongside Apple and Google Play stores for the commercial review. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies. The academic search yielded 937 articles, of which 34 were included, and the commercial review found 21 apps and devices. The included studies show good acceptance and feasibility; however, research reporting on efficacy outcomes is mixed and nascent. Of the commercially available interventions, only eight underwent peer-reviewed evaluation, and only three had received healthcare body approval at the time of the search. Thus, more research is needed to ascertain the efficacy of such interventions, especially in underrepresented groups such as women, minority groups, and insecurely housed people. Additionally, given the limited data identified and the legal and medical risks associated with OUD, further consideration of safety and privacy is warranted. Further, since commercialization has vastly outpaced peer-reviewed research, we suggest amendments to regulatory procedures that consider the risks associated with the intended population, rather than just the intended use. Lastly, we offer suggestions to guide clinical decision-making regarding the use of digital tools in their practice.
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.