Digital Therapeutic Content for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Development and Evaluation Study

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a major public health concern, contributing to significant individual and societal costs. Despite this, the uptake of evidence-based pharmacologic and behavioral interventions remains limited. The digital delivery of SUD treatment has emerged as a potentially scalable way to reduce access barriers and increase treatment use. Existing digital therapeutic interventions are often created without clinician involvement, evidence-based materials, interdisciplinary input, or content review. The implementation of a structured and methodologically rigorous development process is needed across digital health interventions to help ensure patient-facing materials are validated, understandable, and actionable for the end user.

This early report seeks to describe and evaluate an iterative, interdisciplinary, platform-agnostic process for adapting and refining existing print materials for digital therapeutic modules in SUD treatment. The a priori goal was to evaluate if a structured, human-centered approach would generate digital modules that were rated as understandable and actionable based on a validated assessment for written materials.

Fourteen therapeutic modules were adapted from existing Mayo Clinic-written, patient-facing education materials originally developed by a board-certified addiction psychiatrist and a doctoral-level education specialist for clinical use. A team of 4 purposively recruited licensed alcohol and drug counselors with lived experience with a SUD, all in recovery, and a doctoral-level therapeutic specialist met weekly for one hour over a 6-month period to iteratively adapt this existing content for smartphone delivery (2-3 hours per module). The process flow included selecting source material, restructuring content for viewing on a phone screen, simplifying language, improving organization and flow to promote understanding, and including specific actions users could take based on the content. The counselors then independently evaluated the modules using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials (PEMAT-P). PEMAT-P scores for understandability and actionability were calculated as percentages, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize scores in aggregate and across modules. A target of >70% was set for each PEMAT-P domain, consistent with accepted benchmarking standards.

Mean understandability and actionability for all modules were 87.2% (SD 4.8%; range 81.4%-96.9%) and 75.1% (SD 12.3%; range 57.1%-95.0%), respectively, exceeding the recommended threshold. While all modules were adequately understandable, 35.7% (5/14) scored below the actionability threshold.

This early report highlights the value of a human-centered, iterative process for adapting therapeutic materials for digital delivery in SUD treatment. Although the modules performed well overall on PEMAT-P benchmarks, actionability was less consistent than understandability, and aggregate scores masked weaknesses in several individual modules. This indicates that a standardized process does not guarantee actionable material across all content types. Involving current patients in this process may improve the end product by incorporating a perspective that was previously missed.