Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025
Digital Home-Monitoring of Patients after Kidney Transplantation: The MACCS Platform
Published on: April 12, 2021
Efficacy and comparative effectiveness of telephone and smartphone remote continuing care interventions for alcohol
James R McKay1,2, David H Gustafson3, Megan Ivey1
1Center for Studies of Addiction, Perelman School of Medicine. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Background And Aims:
Management of alcohol use disorder (AUD) could be enhanced by effective remote treatments. This study tested whether supplementing intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) with continuing care delivered via (1) telephone, (2) smartphone or (3) their combination improves outcomes relative to (4) IOP only. Continuing care conditions were also compared.
Design:
Randomized controlled trial of four groups with 3-, 6-, 9-, 12- and 18-month follow-ups.
Setting:
University research center in Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Participants:
Participants (n = 262) met DSM-V criteria for AUD, were largely male (71%) and African American (82%).
Interventions And Comparator:
Telephone monitoring and counseling (TMC; n = 59), addiction comprehensive health enhancement support system (ACHESS; n = 68) and TMC + ACHESS (n = 70) provided for 12 months. The control condition received IOP only (TAU; n = 65).
Measurement:
The primary outcome was percentage of days heavy drinking (PDHD) in months 1-12. Secondary outcomes were any drinking, any drug use, drinking consequences and quality of life.
Findings:
Mean PDHD in months 1-12 was 10.29 in TAU, 5.41 in TMC, 6.80 in ACHESS and 5.99 in TMC + ACHESS. PDHD was lower in TMC [Cohen's d = 0.35, P = 0.018, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (-1.42, -0.20)], ACHESS [d = 0.31, P = 0.031, 95% CI = (-1.27, -0.06)] and TMC + ACHESS [d = 0.36, P = 0.009, 95% CI = (-1.40, -0.20)] than in TAU. Differences between TMC + ACHESS, TMC and ACHESS were small (d ≤ 0.06) and non-significant. Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not the treatment conditions differed on PDHD at 18 months. A significant effect was obtained on any drinking, which was higher in months 1-12 in TAU than in TMC [odds ratio (OR) = 3.02, standard error (SE) = 0.43, 95% CI = (1.30, 6.99), P = 0.01] and TMC + ACHESS [OR = 2.43, SE = 0.39, 95% CI = (1.12, 5.27), P = 0.025). No other significant effects were obtained on other secondary outcomes during or after treatment.
Conclusions:
A telephone-delivered intervention and a smartphone-delivered intervention, alone and in combination, provided effective remote continuing care for alcohol use disorder. The combination of both interventions was not superior to either alone and effects did not persist post-treatment.
