TY - JOUR
T1 - The use and impact of self-monitoring on substance use outcomes
T2 - A descriptive systematic review
AU - Gass, Julie C.
AU - Funderburk, Jennifer S.
AU - Shepardson, Robyn
AU - Kosiba, Jesse D.
AU - Rodriguez, Lauren
AU - Maisto, Stephen A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 This work was authored as part of the Contributor’s official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: Self-Monitoring (SM), the act of observing ones’ own behavior, has been used in substance use treatment because SM may bring conscious awareness to automatized substance use behaviors. Empirical findings regarding SM’s effectiveness are mixed. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature for the efficacy of SM on substance use. Method: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed. Results: Out of 2,659 citations, 41 studies with 126 analyses were included. Among analyses from studies rated Moderate (n = 24) or Strong (n = 3) quality, SM was shown to have a helpful effect (e.g., reducing substance use) 29% of the time; to have no effect 63.0% of the time; and to be detrimental in 8.0% of analyses. SM’s helpful effects were associated with methodological characteristics including longer monitoring and Phone/IVR and EMA/Computer methodologies compared to Paper/Pencil. SM was more helpful in non-treatment-seekers (35.0% of analyses showed SM to be helpful compared to 25.0% of analyses with treatment-seekers). Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that SM, under certain circumstances, as the potential to be a low-cost, low-risk research and early intervention strategy for substance users.
AB - Background: Self-Monitoring (SM), the act of observing ones’ own behavior, has been used in substance use treatment because SM may bring conscious awareness to automatized substance use behaviors. Empirical findings regarding SM’s effectiveness are mixed. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature for the efficacy of SM on substance use. Method: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed. Results: Out of 2,659 citations, 41 studies with 126 analyses were included. Among analyses from studies rated Moderate (n = 24) or Strong (n = 3) quality, SM was shown to have a helpful effect (e.g., reducing substance use) 29% of the time; to have no effect 63.0% of the time; and to be detrimental in 8.0% of analyses. SM’s helpful effects were associated with methodological characteristics including longer monitoring and Phone/IVR and EMA/Computer methodologies compared to Paper/Pencil. SM was more helpful in non-treatment-seekers (35.0% of analyses showed SM to be helpful compared to 25.0% of analyses with treatment-seekers). Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that SM, under certain circumstances, as the potential to be a low-cost, low-risk research and early intervention strategy for substance users.
KW - assessment effects
KW - low-intensity intervention
KW - Self-monitoring
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101188822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85101188822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/08897077.2021.1874595
DO - 10.1080/08897077.2021.1874595
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85101188822
JO - Substance Abuse
JF - Substance Abuse
SN - 0889-7077
ER -