Scholarlink

Background <p>Virtual interventions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including intensive outpatient treatment, were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and later maintained in some clinical settings. However, the effectiveness of this type of intervention in healthcare professionals (HPs) has not been studied so far.</p> Methods <p>This is a quasi-experimental cohort study with both retrospective and prospective data comparing the main treatment outcomes of HPs in treatment for SUDs: (1) 29 patients following a 40-hour synchronous virtual group intervention; and, (2) 31 patients following a an 80-hour in-person group psychotherapy. They both underwent in-person psychiatric and psychological individual treatment as well as addictive drug use monitoring. Logistic regression analyses were performed to find predictors of abstinence from addictive substances and of working status. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to first lapse (positive addictive drug use monitoring). Satisfaction rates at the end of each intervention were also compared in both groups using a non-parametric test.</p> Results <p>The sample consisted of 60 HPs, with a mean age of 49.5 years (range: 30–67). Of these, 53.3% (<i>n</i> = 32) were women. Physicians represented 53.3% of all patients. Patients in the <i>virtual</i> group were more likely to be working during the intervention compared with those in the in<i>-person</i> group. At one-year follow-up, 55% of the sample remained abstinent from addictive substances. After multivariate analysis, the type of intervention did not predict abstinence when controlling for other variables, although having dual diagnosis was inversely correlated with remaining abstinent (<i>OR</i>: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07–0.85). HPs receiving in-person intervention were more likely to be working one year after the treatment (<i>OR</i> = 8.3; 95% CI: 2.1–33.3). Time to first lapse was similar between groups, although the <i>in-person</i> sample showed a more heterogeneous distribution. Satisfaction rates were similar in both groups.</p> Conclusions <p>Virtual interventions may be an effective alternative to in-person interventions for HPs with SUDs. More studies are needed to more deeply analyze these preliminary findings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing the effectiveness of in-person vs. virtual intensive group interventions for healthcare professionals with substance use disorders

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月8日

查看全文
  • Enric Llavayol,
  • Regina Santiago,
  • Gemma Nieva,
  • Sílvia Torrent,
  • Carmen Buenaventura,
  • Sergi Valero,
  • Constanza Daigre,
  • Xulián Mozo,
  • Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga,
  • María Dolores Braquehais

摘要

Background

Virtual interventions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including intensive outpatient treatment, were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and later maintained in some clinical settings. However, the effectiveness of this type of intervention in healthcare professionals (HPs) has not been studied so far.

Methods

This is a quasi-experimental cohort study with both retrospective and prospective data comparing the main treatment outcomes of HPs in treatment for SUDs: (1) 29 patients following a 40-hour synchronous virtual group intervention; and, (2) 31 patients following a an 80-hour in-person group psychotherapy. They both underwent in-person psychiatric and psychological individual treatment as well as addictive drug use monitoring. Logistic regression analyses were performed to find predictors of abstinence from addictive substances and of working status. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to first lapse (positive addictive drug use monitoring). Satisfaction rates at the end of each intervention were also compared in both groups using a non-parametric test.

Results

The sample consisted of 60 HPs, with a mean age of 49.5 years (range: 30–67). Of these, 53.3% (n = 32) were women. Physicians represented 53.3% of all patients. Patients in the virtual group were more likely to be working during the intervention compared with those in the in-person group. At one-year follow-up, 55% of the sample remained abstinent from addictive substances. After multivariate analysis, the type of intervention did not predict abstinence when controlling for other variables, although having dual diagnosis was inversely correlated with remaining abstinent (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07–0.85). HPs receiving in-person intervention were more likely to be working one year after the treatment (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 2.1–33.3). Time to first lapse was similar between groups, although the in-person sample showed a more heterogeneous distribution. Satisfaction rates were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Virtual interventions may be an effective alternative to in-person interventions for HPs with SUDs. More studies are needed to more deeply analyze these preliminary findings.