Cognitive Bias Modification for Behavior Change in Alcohol and Smoking Addiction: Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data

Abstract

Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) refers to a family of interventions targeting substance-related cognitive biases, which have been found to play a role in the maintenance of addictive behaviors. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data from studies investigating the effects of CBM as a behavior change intervention for the treatment of alcohol and tobacco use disorders, in individuals aware of the behavior change goal of the studies. Main outcomes included reduction in the targeted cognitive biases after the intervention and in substance use or relapse rate at the short-to-long term follow-up. Additional moderators, both at the study-level (type of addiction and CBM training) and at the participant-level (amount of completed training trials, severity of substance use), were progressively included in a series of hierarchical mixed-effects models. We included 14 studies involving 2435 participants. CBM appeared to have a small effect on cognitive bias (0.23, 95% credible interval = 0.06–0.41) and relapse rate (−0.27, 95% credible interval = −0.68 – 0.22), but not on reduction of substance use. Increased training practice showed a paradoxical moderation effect on relapse, with a relatively lower chance of relapse in the control condition with increased practice, compared to the training condition. All effects were associated with extremely wide 95% credible intervals, which indicate the absence of enough evidence in favor or against a reliable effect of CBM on cognitive bias and relapse rate in alcohol and tobacco use disorders. Besides the need for a larger body of evidence, research on the topic would benefit from a stronger adherence to the current methodological standards in randomized controlled trial design and the systematic investigation of shared protocols of CBM. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11065-018-9386-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does alcohol cue inhibitory control training survive a context shift?

“…However, we were only be able to reliably detect an effect size of d = .65 for the (between-subjects) main effect of group (at 80% power). Furthermore, the effect sizes on inhibitory control and stimulus devaluation are less clear and likely to be (Boffo et al, 2019;Cristea, Kok, & Cuijpers, 2016).…”

Recovery from addiction: Behavioral economics and value-based decision making.

“…Similarly, experimental interventions that are intended to mitigate hyperbolic discounting processes, including reward bundling (Ainslie & Monterosso, 2003;Hofmeyr, Ainslie, Charlton, & Ross, 2011) and episodic future thinking (Rung & Madden, 2018;Stein et al, 2016), might initially raise response thresholds before amplifying the EA signal for substance-free activities. Cognitive bias modification (CBM; see Boffo et al, 2019) might influence substance use through a number of mechanisms. For instance, given that selective attention to choice options amplifies value signals (Krajbich et al, 2010;Krajbich & Rangel, 2011), attenuation of attentional-biases for substance-related cues after attentional bias modification would be expected to suppress EA for substance use (Field et al, 2016).…”

A Roadmap for Integrating Neuroscience Into Addiction Treatment: A Consensus of the Neuroscience Interest Group of the International Society of Addiction Medicine

“…Gathering more data in this still-developing area is essential to facilitate translation. Even the most widely tested training interventions, such as cognitive bias modification, need more data to fully appraise their benefit for addiction treatment (147). This section summarizes recent advances in CT, identifies limitations in the evidence base, and highlights priorities and directions for future research to bridge the gap between science and practice.…”