Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Substance Abuse (569) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (4305) Digital Mental Health Interventions, e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (2349) Behavior Change (923) Alcohol Abuse, Alcoholism Prevention and Recovery (357) Prevention and Health Promotion (1525)

Published on in Vol 13 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/82370, first published .
Digitally Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drug Use: Meta-Analysis Across Consumption and Psychosocial Outcomes

Digitally Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drug Use: Meta-Analysis Across Consumption and Psychosocial Outcomes

Digitally Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol and Other Drug Use: Meta-Analysis Across Consumption and Psychosocial Outcomes

Authors of this article:

Brian D Kiluk1 Author Orcid Image ;   Lara A Ray2 Author Orcid Image ;   Omeed Tartak3 Author Orcid Image ;   Lovisa Werner3 Author Orcid Image ;   Thomas A Trikalinos3 Author Orcid Image ;   Molly Magill3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Review

    1Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States

    2Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States

    3Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Brian D Kiluk, PhD

    Department of Psychiatry

    Yale School of Medicine

    40 Temple Street

    6C

    New Haven, CT, 06510

    United States

    Phone: 1 2037371544

    Email: brian.kiluk@yale.edu


    Background: Cognitive behaviorally based interventions have broad appeal and potential for impact when treating adult alcohol and other drug use. Digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based interventions (dCBIs) may offer this impact with the benefit of increased accessibility. Although prior reviews have indicated the benefits of dCBIs on substance use outcomes, the extension to psychosocial functioning outcomes is unknown.

    Objective: This meta-analysis provides an overview of dCBI effects across a range of functional end points.

    Methods: A literature search was conducted through October 2024. All primary and secondary reports of clinical trials of dCBI were obtained, and all available study end points were eligible for meta-analysis. Descriptive data were extracted and categorized into 1 of 13 different outcome types (eg, abstinence, quantity, cognitive, and quality of life) and into 2 broader outcome classes (ie, consumption and psychosocial). Robust variance estimation was used to conduct hypothesis tests on random effects pooled estimates with outcome class and comparison type as the primary subgroup variables of interest.

    Results: The study sample included 65 randomized trials (K=110 publications; 753 effect sizes) of dCBI for adult alcohol and other drug use. With respect to efficacy, dCBI as a stand-alone treatment in contrast to a minimal treatment control showed positive and statistically significant effects for consumption (g=0.27; P<.001; I2=85.1%; k=31; kes=134) and psychosocial (g=0.16; P=.008; I2=75.2%; k=16; kes=60) outcomes. As an addition to usual care, efficacy was demonstrated for consumption (g=0.23; P<.001; I2=9.8%; k=20; kes=65), but not psychosocial functioning. Efficacy compared to another digital or in-person intervention or cognitive behaviorally based intervention delivered by a therapist was not observed. Within the dCBI condition, large effect sizes were observed for both outcome classes (ie, 60%-80% of participants showed improvement relative to baseline), and effect size magnitude and statistical heterogeneity varied by the type of outcome examined.

    Conclusions: These results show a benefit for dCBI as a stand-alone therapy and an addition to usual care. Importantly, stand-alone effects were observed for both consumption and some psychosocial outcomes. This study is the first to offer a comprehensive look at dCBI intervention effects across a range of functional end points.

    JMIR Ment Health 2026;13:e82370

    doi:10.2196/82370

    Keywords

    alcohol treatment; substance use disorders; cognitive behavioral therapy; digital therapeutics; technology-based treatment; meta-analysis 


    Background

    Alcohol and other drug use (AOD) disorders are associated with a significant public health burden, including mortality, economic burden, and adverse social- and individual-level consequences [1,2]. They are highly comorbid with other mental health disorders [3] and can have profound negative effects on psychosocial functioning, including overall mental health and quality of life [4]. Although vastly underused, there are a number of effective treatments available for AOD. Among them, cognitive behaviorally based interventions (CBIs) are the most widely researched and clinically practiced interventions for AOD. CBIs (ie, cognitive behavioral therapies or cognitive behavioral therapies with elements of other evidence-based modalities such as motivational interviewing) consist of a broad range of behavioral interventions, including those targeting operant learning processes, cognitive and motivational strategies, and skills training targeting interpersonal, emotion regulation, and organizational or problem-solving deficits [5]. Multiple meta-analyses have provided evidence supporting CBI efficacy in treating AOD [6], including when combined with pharmacotherapy [7], and for co-occurring disorders [8].

    Despite its demonstrated efficacy, barriers such as limited access to trained providers, costs of training, geographic limitations, and stigma impede the widespread delivery and uptake of CBIs in traditional settings [9,10]. To overcome these challenges, digital platforms (ie, computer-delivered, web-based, or mobile platforms) have emerged as a promising modality for expanding access to evidence-based care. Given its structured, problem-focused, and time-limited format, CBIs are among the most common therapeutic approaches in digital mental health interventions [11]. These digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based interventions (dCBIs) aim to replicate the core components of CBIs in a highly scalable and often self-guided format. A body of research has emerged over the past 2 decades indicating support for dCBIs (also referred to as internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT] and technology-delivered CBT) in treating AOD. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate a small, significant effect of dCBIs on reducing substance use compared to control conditions [12-14]. However, the impact of these interventions on outcomes beyond substance use is relatively unknown. Of particular interest are indicators of cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and lifestyle changes that are targeted by dCBIs that may promote recovery from AOD [15]. Evidence of a positive effect on psychosocial outcomes (eg, mental health, emotional well-being, coping strategies, daily functioning, and quality of life) would enhance the clinical significance of changes in substance use.

    Meta-Analysis Purpose and Aims

    The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate dCBI effects across 2 broad classes of outcomes for AOD: substance use consumption and psychosocial functioning. These outcome classes were the primary subgroup variable in this study. Because the experimental comparator is a common predictor of effect size variability in meta-analyses [16], the comparator type was the second primary subgroup variable of interest. As a follow-up and in cases of significant statistical heterogeneity within subgroups, regression-based moderator analyses were undertaken. Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted (eg, risk of bias assessment and publication bias assessment) and are reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.


    Primary Study Literature Search

    A librarian-supported literature search was conducted through October 2022 (with an updated search to October 2024) to identify studies for a meta-analysis project on CBIs for AOD. Specifically, a title, abstract, and keyword search by treatment (eg, “cognitive behavioral therapy”), outcome (eg, “alcohol”), and methodological (eg, “randomized clinical trial”) terms was conducted in the PubMed database (sample search strategy can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1). Other databases that were searched included Cochrane CENTRAL and EBSCO (ie, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and SocINDEX). Abstract screening occurred in Covidence and was conducted by 4 raters, with 2 raters (OT and LW) for each study, and consensus decisions were made by the lead study investigator (MM). Because varying modes of CBI delivery (eg, delivered via technology, delivered in-person, and combined with other behavioral modalities) were of interest to the larger project, the literature search yielded 1387 primary and secondary clinical trial reports that were downloaded and reviewed for eligibility in 1 or more meta-analyses. Additional steps included a bibliographic review of relevant review papers [17-30] and a clinical trial number search to derive all available publications on a given primary study sample.

    Primary Study Inclusion

    Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) English language publication, (2) peer-reviewed publication, (3) publication date between 1970 and 2024, (4) randomized controlled trial, (5) adult patient population (median age ≥18 years), (6) patient population meeting criteria for an alcohol or other substance use disorder (ie, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM] III-R through 5 [31-34]) or at-risk use based on an established criterion (eg, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test score >8 [35]), and (7) a cognitive behavioral or combined cognitive behavioral (ie, combined with elements of other evidence-based AOD treatments) intervention delivered in a digital and/or mobile health format (ie, via a computer software program, an internet site, or a mobile phone–based app; see Multimedia Appendix 2 [36-100] for details on dCBI interventions).

    Primary Study Characteristic Variables

    There were several study descriptors or moderator variables of interest to this meta-analysis. Because the type of comparator is often a primary driver of effect size magnitude [6,16], effect sizes were pooled overall and by the following 4 between- and 1 within-condition comparator type, respectively: (1) dCBI at follow-up compared to assessment only or minimal treatment (eg, a pamphlet or a noninteractive website with AOD information) at follow-up, (2) dCBI at follow-up compared to another treatment modality (eg, other online intervention and a control treatment) or treatment as usual at follow-up, (3) dCBI added to treatment as usual at follow-up compared to treatment as usual at follow-up, (4) dCBI at follow-up compared to CBI delivered by a counselor at follow-up, and (5) dCBI at follow-up compared to dCBI at baseline. Study characteristic variables were organized by demographic, clinical, treatment, and study method factors. Demographic variables included mean age of participants, percentage of female participants, percentage of participants belonging to 1 or more racial groups (eg, Asian, Black, and White), percentage of participants belonging to the Latine ethnic group, percentage of participants identifying a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, percentage of participants identifying as transgender or other non-cisgender identities, percentage of participants with some college education, and percentage of participants who are full- or part-time employed. Clinical variables included the primary drug targeted (ie, alcohol, cannabis, opioid, polydrug, stimulant), substance use severity (ie, inclusion of individuals with use disorder vs at-risk consumption), and 1 or more co-occurring conditions (eg, depression and pain) as a sample inclusion criterion (ie, yes vs no). Treatment variables were dCBI format (ie, CBI only vs CBI combined with other evidence-based treatment elements), dCBI combined with pharmacotherapy (ie, yes vs no), clinically supported dCBI (ie, yes vs no), and treatment length (ie, number of content modules). Study methodological factors included study sample size, publication year, context (ie, community sample, specialty substance use or mental health clinic, other setting; eg, primary care clinic and college campus), publication country (ie, United States and other countries), and study-level risk-of-bias score [101]. Data extraction guidelines were detailed in a study codebook available, upon request, from the last author (MM). Data were extracted using consensus methods between the third and fourth authors (OT and LW; agreement rate 79.9%). The last author resolved disagreements, with input from members of the full study team as needed.

    Effect Size Calculation and Outcomes of Interest

    Hedges g is a standardized mean difference with a correction for a slight upward bias in the estimated effect size when samples are small [102].

    where i indexes a trial, t and c are experimental and control arms, s is SDs, M is outcome means, df is degrees of freedom, and n is sample sizes.

    The project literature search sought all publications related to a given primary study sample. The purpose of this was to extract all available outcome data points and thus inform a comprehensive picture of dCBI efficacy, effects, and recovery. During the data extraction phase, all available outcomes and their exact measures were identified and grouped into 1 of 13 outcome classes (ie, abstinence, use frequency, heavy use frequency, peak consumption, quantity, dependence severity, other drug use, consequences, cognitive outcomes, coping outcomes, mental health symptoms, general health, and quality of life; see Multimedia Appendix 3 for the full list of study measures and harmonization procedures by outcome class). As a result of this procedure, each primary study could contribute multiple effect sizes, including by comparison type, outcome class, and follow-up time point (ie, the latest data point within 3 ranges: 0-3 months, 4-6 months, and 7 months or later). Effect sizes were reverse-scored as needed (eg, number of days drank) such that a positive effect size indicated a positive treatment outcome for dCBI. Finally, when data from publications were insufficient for effect size calculation (ie, missing variance estimates and statement of “no significant difference between conditions”), raw data were sought from authors (response rate 60%, with 1 study removed due to nonresponse to data request [103]).

    Effect Size Pooling and Sensitivity Analysis

    Effect sizes were pooled using inverse variance weighting and a random effects model. Inverse variance weighting allows larger sample studies more weight in the overall pooled effect estimate [104]. A random effects model assumes a distribution, rather than a single population effect size [105]. For hypothesis testing, sources of dependency from multiple study-level effect sizes (ie, multiple study comparators, outcomes, and/or time points) were handled via robust SEs. Specifically, an approximated covariance matrix is derived from the product of within-study residuals and used to calculate cluster-robust SEs and CIs under a t-distribution [106]. The within-study correlation between dependent effects was assumed to be constant (ie, default ρ of 0.8), and sensitivity analyses were conducted that varied the correlation value. Cluster-robust SEs also gain accuracy as the sample of primary studies increases, but a small-sample correction allows for stable estimates in samples as small as 10 primary studies [107]. Meta-analysis was performed in the robumeta package for R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [106].

    The random effects and pooled effect sizes in this study were calculated for 2 outcome classes: consumption (ie, abstinence, use frequency, heavy use frequency, peak consumption, quantity, dependence severity, and other drug use) and psychosocial functioning (ie, consequences, cognitive outcomes, coping outcomes, mental health symptoms, general health, and quality of life). These outcome classes as well as comparator type were the primary subgroup moderators of interest. However, in cases of significant residual study heterogeneity (ie, ≥50% [105] of between-study variance relative to sampling variance measured via the I2 estimate and k≥10 [108]), regression-based moderator analyses by time point (ie, posttreatment to 3 months vs 4 months or later) and primary drug targeted (ie, alcohol, polydrug, and other) were undertaken in attempt to explain additional systematic variation between studies. Prediction intervals were additionally calculated in the case of statistical heterogeneity to obtain a range of potential future effect sizes that incorporate the systematic variability in the data [109]. We considered these sensitivity analyses as a method for examining the validity of our a priori subgroups. Additional sensitivity analysis included effect size pooling for each of the 13 outcome types, analysis of influential studies (ie, studies that, if removed, would change the substantive interpretation of the effect size), and analyses using traditional meta-analytic methods (ie, average dependent effect sizes to the study level and then calculate random effects pooled effect sizes and corresponding hypothesis test statistics). To test for potential publication bias, the relationship between the inverse of the SE and effect size was examined with graphical plots and a rank-order correlation [110]. In this analysis, asymmetry within the plot (ie, the majority of studies located at the bottom right quadrant) and a negative correlation would suggest publication bias. Finally, the risk of bias results is summarized for the sample of primary studies.


    Primary Study Inclusion Results

    PRISMA guidelines were followed (Multimedia Appendix 4), and the study inclusion flow for this study is summarized in Figure 1. The final meta-analytic sample included K=65 studies (k=45 related reports; N=24,145 individuals) of dCBIs for AOD.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.

    Primary Study Descriptive Characteristics

    All sample-level study characteristics are summarized in Table 1, while characteristics at the individual study level are in Table 2. The sample included 65 randomized trials (K=110 publications; 753 effect sizes [consumption: 475; psychosocial: 278]) of dCBI for adult AOD published between 1997 and 2024 [36-44,46-100,111-150]. The mean sample size was 371.46 (SD 997.65) participants with a minimum of 20 [36] and a maximum of 7935 [37]. For participant characteristics, the samples’ mean age was 37.69 (SD 8.88) years, and samples were 45.63% female (SD 19.89%; 100% for 2 studies [38,39]) on average. Among studies that reported racial and ethnic data, the mean samples were 21.77% Asian or Pacific Islander (SD 38.92%; 100% Asian in Liang et al [111]), 34.24% (SD 24.11%) Black, 15.49% (SD 28.67%) Native American or Indigenous person, 59.62% (SD 24.43%) White, and 6.99% (SD 5.84%) multiracial. The mean samples were 20.25% (SD 22.79%; 100% in Paris et al [40]) of Latine ethnicity. Additional sample characteristics included sexual orientation, sex identity, education, and employment status. While reporting on these factors was relatively infrequent across studies, these descriptive data are summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1. Meta-analysis sample study characteristics.
    VariableKa (%)Mean (SD)Studies (n=65), n (%)
    Study65 (100)371.46 (997.65)—b
    Study date65 (100)2016.58 (4.86)—
    Age (years)63 (97)37.69 (8.88)—
    Sex—

    		Female65 (100)45.63 (19.89)

    		Transgender4 (6)3.93 (3.35)

    		Not heterosexual3 (5)26.93 (11.90)
    Race and ethnicity—

    		Asian or Pacific Islander6 (9)21.77 (38.92)

    		Black20 (31)34.24 (24.11)

    		Hispanic or Latine22 (34)20.25 (22.79)

    		Indigenous7 (11)15.49 (28.67)

    		White25 (38)59.62 (24.43)

    		Multiracial8 (12)6.99 (5.84)
    Education

    		Some college23 (35)45.81 (23.69)—
    Employment status

    		Employed38 (58)50.81 (22.17)—
    Drug targeted——

    		Alcohol

    		35 (53.85)

    		Cannabis

    		7 (10.77)

    		Opioid

    		5 (7.69)

    		Polydrug

    		13 (20)

    		Stimulant

    		5 (7.69)
    Use disorder——

    		No

    		25 (38.46)

    		Yes

    		40 (61.54)
    Co-occurring condition——

    		No

    		55 (84.62)

    		Yes

    		10 (15.38)
    Combined therapy——

    		MIc alone

    		27 (41.54)

    		Other

    		12 (18.46)

    		Not applicable

    		26 (40)
    Plus pharmacotherapy——

    		No

    		52 (80)

    		Yes

    		13 (20)
    Clinician supported——

    		No

    		41 (63.08)

    		Yes

    		24 (36.92)
    Number of modules5412.20 (15.17)—
    Context——

    		College setting

    		4 (6.15)

    		Community sample

    		30 (46.15)

    		Medical setting

    		2 (3.08)

    		Other or multiple settings

    		12 (18.46)

    		Specialty setting

    		17 (26.15)
    Publication country——

    		United States

    		26 (40)

    		Non–United States

    		39 (60)
    Overall risk of bias——

    		High risk

    		53 (81.54)

    		Low risk

    		1 (1.54)

    		Unclear

    		11 (16.94)

    aK=number of studies.

    bNot applicable.

    cMI: motivational interviewing.

    Table 2. Digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based intervention (dCBI) primary study characteristics at the study levela.
    Author (year)Values, nTreatment and comparison conditionsDrug targetedTime pointOutcomes
    dCBI compared to assessment only or minimal treatment

    		Andersson (2015) [47]1678Internet intervention versus no treatmentAlcohol6 weeksUse frequency, peak consumption, quantity, dependence severity

    		Baumgartner et al (2021) [49]689Adherence-focused guidance enhancement for alcohol and depression versus internet as usualAlcohol3, 6 monthsAbstinence, use frequency, quantity, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    		Baumgartner et al (2021) [50]575CANreduce 2 versus internet as usualCannabis3 monthsUse frequency, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    		Blankers et al (2011) [52], arm 1205Self-help alcohol online versus waitlistAlcohol3, 6 monthsQuantity, dependence severity, quality of life

    		Bonar et al (2022) [53]149Social media intervention versus attention-matched Facebook groupCannabis3, 6 monthsUse frequency, quantity

    		Brendryen et al (2014) [54]244Balance versus screening with feedback plus online bookletAlcohol2, 6 monthsQuantity

    		Brief et al (2013) [41]600VetChange versus delayed intervention groupAlcohol0 weeksHeavy use frequency, quantity, mental health symptoms

    		Chander et al (2021) [38]439Computer-delivered brief alcohol intervention versus oral health interventionAlcohol3, 6, 12 monthsUse frequency, heavy use frequency, quantity

    		Cunningham (2012) [43]170The alcohol help center versus Check Your Drinking screenerAlcoholPosttreatment, 6 monthsPeak, quantity, dependence severity

    		Daros et al (2024) [62]72Pocket Skills 2.0 versus delayed treatmentPolydrug4, 12 weeksSeverity, coping outcomes, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Deady et al (2016) [42]104DEAL Project versus HealthWatch attention-matched controlAlcohol3, 6 monthsUse frequency, quantity, mental health symptoms

    		Gajecki et al (2017) [64]186TeleCoach versus waitlistAlcohol12 weeksQuantity

    		Guillemont et al (2017) [68]1147Alcoometre versus brief feedback with diaryAlcohol0 weeksQuantity, dependence severity

    		Hester and Delaney (1997) [36]40Behavioral Self-Control Program for Windows versus waitlistAlcohol0 weeksUse frequency, peak consumption, quantity

    		Johansson et al (2021) [72]1169Self-help internet-based CBTb versus information on changing alcohol habitsAlcohol3, 6 monthsAbstinence, peak consumption, quantity, dependence severity, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Kramer et al (2009) [78]181Drinking Less TV self-help course versus waitlistAlcohol0 weeksQuantity, dependence severity, consequences

    		Leeman et al (2016) [79]208Tertiary Health Research Intervention via Email versus Electronic brochureAlcohol1, 6 monthsUse frequency, heavy use frequency, peak consumption, quantity, consequences, coping outcomes

    		Liang et al (2018) [111]75S-Health versus psychoeducational text messages aloneOpioids4 weeksAbstinence, use frequency

    		Mujcic et al (2022) [81]103MyCourse versus digital brochureAlcohol2, 5, 11 monthsAbstinence, quantity, dependence severity

    		Riper et al (2008) [84]261Drinking Less versus psychoeducational brochureAlcohol6 monthsQuantity, dependence severity

    		Schaub et al (2015) [87]308CANreduce versus waitlistCannabis3 monthsUse frequency, quantity, dependence severity, other drug use, mental health symptoms

    		Schaub et al (2019) [86]311Snow control versus waitlistStimulantPosttreatment, 6 monthsUse frequency, quantity, dependence severity, other drug use, mental health symptoms

    		Sinadinovic et al (2014) [91], arm 1633Alkoholhjalpen versus waitlistAlcohol3, 6, 12 monthsQuantity

    		Sinadinovic et al (2020) [90]303A way out of fog versus waitlistCannabis6 weeksAbstinence, quantity, dependence severity, other drug use, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Stapinski et al (2021) [92]123Inroads anxiety and alcohol use intervention versus assessment plus alcohol informationAlcohol3 weeks, 5 monthsPeak, quantity, dependence severity, consequences, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Sunami et al (2021) [93]100Sensible and Natural Alcoholism Prevention Program for You: Diary On Computer versus assessment onlyAlcohol8 weeksAbstinence, quantity, dependence severity

    		Sundström et al (2020) [94]166Low-intensity internet intervention versus waitlistAlcohol0 weeksHeavy use frequency, quantity, dependence severity, cognitive outcomes, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Tait et al (2014) [95]160breakingtheice versus waitlistStimulant6 monthsAbstinence, consequences, other drug use, cognitive outcomes, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Wallace et al (2011) [37]7935Down Your Drink versus text-based information about alcohol harmsAlcohol3, 12 monthsUse frequency, peak consumption

    		Wilks et al (2018) [99]59Internet-delivered DBTc skills training intervention versus WaitlistAlcohol2 monthsQuantity, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    		Zill et al (2019) [100]608Vorvida versus waitlistAlcohol0 weeksPeak, consequences, quantity
    dCBI compared to another treatment or TAUd

    		Augsburger et al (2022) [48]589Online self-help intervention versus self-test including personalized feedbackAlcohol6 monthsAbstinence, quantity, dependence severity, cognitive outcomes, mental health symptoms

    		Berman et al (2020) [51]89TeleCoach versus control appAlcohol6 weeksUse frequency, peak consumption, quantity, cognitive outcomes

    		Blankers et al (2011) [52], arm 2205Self-help alcohol online versus therapy alcohol onlineAlcohol3, 6 monthsQuantity, dependence severity, quality of life

    		Budney et al (2015) [55], arm 175Computer-delivered METe/CBT/CMf (COMPUTER) versus brief MET intervention+incentive programCannabisPosttreatment, 9 monthsAbstinence

    		Gonzalez and Dulin (2015) [66]60Location-based monitoring and intervention for alcohol use disorders versus Drinker’s Check-up plus bibliotherapyAlcohol0 weeksAbstinence, heavy use frequency

    		Kay-Lambkin et al (2009) [75], arm 197Computer-delivered Self-Help for Alcohol and other drug use and Depression versus brief intervention alonePolydrug3, 9 monthsHeavy use frequency, mental health symptoms

    		Kay-Lambkin et al (2011) [74], arm 1274Clinician-assisted computerized treatment versus person-centered therapyPolydrugPosttreatment, 1, 4, 10 monthsSeverity, mental health symptoms, other

    		Kiluk et al (2018) [77], arm 1137CBT4CBTg versus Outpatient TAUPolydrugPosttreatment, 3, 6 monthsAbstinence, dependence severity, frequency, consequences

    		O’Donnell et al (2019) [82]45Minimize versus control app with self-monitoring onlyAlcohol0 weeksPeak, coping outcomes, general health, quality of life

    		Olthof et al (2023) [83]378ICan versus online educational modulesCannabis3, 6 monthsUse frequency, quantity, dependence severity, cognitive outcomes, coping outcomes

    		Rooke et al (2013) [85]225Reduce Your Use versus control informationCannabis3 monthsAbstinence, use frequency, quantity, dependence severity, consequences

    		Schaub et al (2012) [88]196Snow control versus psychoeducational modulesStimulantPosttreatment, 20 weeksAbstinence, quantity, dependence severity, other drug use, cognitive outcomes, mental health symptoms

    		Sinadinovic et al (2014) [91], arm 2633Alkoholhjalpen versus eScreen.seAlcohol3, 6, 12 monthsQuantity
    dCBI plus TAU compared to TAU only

    		Acosta et al (2017) [46]162Thinking Forward+TAU versus primary care TAUPolydrug3 monthsUse frequency, heavy use frequency, other drug use, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Campbell et al (2014) [56]507TESh+TAU versus TAUPolydrug0 weeksAbstinence

    		Campbell et al (2023) [57]53TES-Native version+TAU versus TAUPolydrug0, 12 weeksAbstinence, consequences, coping outcomes, quality of life

    		Carroll et al (2008) [58]73CBT4CBT+TAU versus TAUPolydrugPosttreatment, 3, 6 monthsAbstinence, coping outcomes

    		Carroll et al (2014) [59]101CBT4CBT+TAU versus TAU (MMTi)StimulantPosttreatment, 6 monthsAbstinence, consequences, coping outcomes

    		Carroll et al (2018) [60]120CBT4CBT+TAU versus TAU (MMT)StimulantPosttreatment, 3 monthsAbstinence, quantity

    		Christensen et al (2014) [61]170CRAj+CM online versus buprenorphine+CMOpioids0 weeksAbstinence

    		Farren et al (2015) [63]55Cognitive relapse prevention-based computerized therapy+TAU versus attention-matched arithmetic exercises+TAUAlcohol3 monthsAbstinence, use frequency, quantity, cognitive outcomes, mental health symptoms

    		Glasner et al (2020) [65]35CBT intervention (ALCk-TXTl-CBT)+TAU versus informational pamphlet and HIV TAUAlcohol0 weeksUse frequency, heavy use frequency, general health

    		Guarino et al (2018) [67]110Take Charge of Pain+TAU versus pain practice care TAUOpioids3 monthsConsequences, general health, coping outcomes, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Hester et al (2011) [69]84ModerateDrinking+Moderation Management versus Moderation Management aloneAlcohol3, 6, 12 monthsConsequences, quantity

    		Hester et al (2013) [70]189Overcoming Addictions +Smart Recovery meetings versus Smart Recovery meetingsAlcohol3, 6 monthsAbstinence, quantity, consequences

    		Hyland et al (2023) [71]264iCBTm+TAU versus TAUAlcohol3, 12 monthsAbstinence, heavy use frequency, quantity, dependence severity, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Kelpin et al (2022) [39]63CBT4CBT+TAU versus residential TAUPolydrug12 weeksAbstinence, use frequency

    		Kiluk et al (2016) [76]68CBT4CBT+TAU versus outpatient TAUAlcoholPosttreatment, 3, 6 monthsAbstinence, heavy use frequency

    		Marsch et al (2014) [80]160TES+MMT versus MMTOpioids12 monthsAbstinence

    		Paris et al (2018) [40]92CBT4CBT-Spanish+TAU versus outpatient TAUPolydrugPosttreatment, 3, 6 monthsAbstinence

    		Schouten et al (2024) [44]163Beating the Booze+TAU versus TAUAlcohol3, 6 monthsQuantity, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    		Shi et al (2019) [89]20CBT4CBT+buprenophine+TAU versus buprenorphine maintenance+TAUOpioids0 weeksAbstinence

    		Takano et al (2020) [112]48e-Learning Serigaya Methamphetamine Relapse Prevention Program+outpatient treatment versus self-monitoring+outpatient treatmentPolydrugPosttreatment, 3, 6 monthsAbstinence, cognitive outcomes

    		Tetrault et al (2020) [97]58CBT4CBT+standard care versus primary care standard carePolydrug0 weeksAbstinence, use frequency
    dCBI compared to CBI with a therapist

    		Budney et al (2015) [55], arm 275Computer-delivered MET/CBT/CM (COMPUTER) versus CBT+CMCannabisPosttreatment, 9 monthsAbstinence

    		Johansson et al (2020) [73]301Internet‐delivered CBT versus module content via therapy sessionsAlcohol3, 6 monthsQuantity, abstinence, peak consumption, dependence severity, mental health symptoms, quality of life

    		Kay-Lambkin et al (2009) [75], arm 297Computer-delivered Self-Help for Alcohol and other drug use and Depression intensive therapy versus in-person CBT or MInPolydrug3, 9 monthsHeavy use frequency, mental health symptoms

    		Kay-Lambkin et al (2011) [74], arm 2274Clinician-assisted computerized treatment versus in-person CBT or MIPolydrugPosttreatment, 1, 4, 10 monthsSeverity, mental health symptoms, other

    		Kiluk et al (2018) [133], arm 2137CBT4CBT versus CBT in-personPolydrugPosttreatment, 6 monthsAbstinence, dependence severity, frequency, consequences

    		Tiburcio et al (2018) [98], arm 183Programa de Ayuda para Abuso de Drogas y Depresión versus CBT in-personPolydrugPosttreatment, 1 monthUse frequency, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    		Tiburcio et al (2018) [98], arm 283Programa de Ayuda para Abuso de Drogas y Depresión versus treatment center TAU with self-help guidePolydrugPosttreatment, 1 monthUse frequency, dependence severity, mental health symptoms

    aK=65 with 71 study arms.

    bCBT: cognitive behavioral therapy.

    cDBT: dialectical behavioral therapy.

    dTAU: treatment as usual.

    eMET: motivational enhancement therapy.

    fCM: contingency management.

    gCBT4CBT: computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy.

    hTES: therapeutic enhancement system.

    iMMT: methadone maintenance treatment.

    jCRA: community reinforcement approach.

    kALC: alcohol (use).

    lTXT: text messaging.

    miCBT: internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy.

    nMI: motivational interviewing.

    The primary substance targets were alcohol use (35/65, 53.85%), followed by polydrug use (13/65, 20%), with a majority of samples meeting criteria for an alcohol or substance use disorder (40/65, 61.54%). Further, 15.38% (10/65) of studies targeted a co-occurring condition, such as posttraumatic stress disorder [41] or depression [42]. While full details on study interventions can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2, the mean length of treatment was 12.20 (SD 15.17) modules or exercises, 36.92% (24/65) included some form of clinical support, such as online support [43] or feedback on homework [112], and over half of the interventions included elements of other evidence-based treatments (eg, motivational interviewing). For study context, participants were mostly recruited from the community via online advertising (30/65, 46.15%), followed by specialty mental health or addictions treatment facilities (17/65, 26.15%). A majority of studies took place outside of the United States (39/65, 60%). Finally, study-level risk of bias results showed that most studies had at least 1 high risk designation (which we then designated as high risk overall), and these were typically due to a lack of participant or personal blinding or incomplete outcome data (Multimedia Appendix 5).

    dCBI Effect Size by Outcome Class and Comparison Type

    Overview

    Primary study effect sizes were pooled by outcome class and comparison type. When effect sizes were pooled across all 4 between-condition comparisons, the overall pooled effect for consumption outcomes was small, positive, statistically significant, and heterogeneous (g=0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.30; P<.001; τ=0.08; I2=76.7%; k=63; kes=274). Psychosocial outcomes showed a similar pattern of results (g=0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.23; P=.001; τ2=0.06; I2=70.1%; k=39; kes=147). These findings were consistent across correlation values and similar to findings based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6). The following sections consider pooled effect sizes by each between-condition comparison, followed by within-condition comparisons.

    dCBI Compared to Minimal Treatment

    Studies of dCBI compared to assessment only or minimal treatment showed a small, positive, and significant effect for consumption (g=0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.39; P<.001; τ2=0.10; I2=85.1%; k=31; kes=134) and psychosocial outcomes (g=0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.27; P=.008; τ2=0.04; I2=75.2%; k=16; kes=60) over follow-up. Heterogeneity data showed systematic, relative to random variability, suggesting the utility of further moderation analyses. The 95% prediction interval suggested that future studies of dCBI for AOD with minimal treatment comparators may observe consumption effect sizes ranging from –0.39 to 0.93 and psychosocial effect sizes ranging from –0.29 to 0.61. Findings were consistent across correlation values and like those based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6). For assessment of bias due to publication status in studies contrasting dCBI with a minimal control, Figures S1 and S2 in Multimedia Appendix 7 show symmetry in the distribution of effect sizes by magnitude and SE. This does not suggest publication bias.

    dCBI Compared to Another Treatment

    Studies of dCBI compared to a control treatment or treatment as usual showed a nonsignificant effect for consumption outcomes over follow-up (g=0.08, 95% CI –0.23 to 0.39; P=.59; τ2=0.12; I2=80.0%; k=12; kes=53). Psychosocial outcomes were also nonsignificant (g=0.19, 95% CI –0.17 to 0.54; P=.26; τ2=0.15; I2=84.6%; k=10; kes=33). Heterogeneity data showed values above our threshold, but only the consumption pooled effect size met our sample size criterion. The 95% prediction interval suggested that future studies of dCBI for AOD compared to another treatment may observe consumption effect sizes ranging from –0.77 to 0.93 and psychosocial effect sizes ranging from –0.79 to 1.17. Findings were consistent across correlation values and like those based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6). For assessment of bias due to publication status in studies contrasting dCBI with another treatment, Figures S3 and S4 in Multimedia Appendix 7 do not suggest an association between SE and effect size.

    dCBI as an Addition to Treatment as Usual

    Studies of dCBI as an addition to treatment as usual, compared to treatment as usual alone, showed a small, positive, and significant effect for consumption outcomes over follow-up (g=0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.31; P<.001; τ2<.01; I2=9.8%; k=20; kes=65), while psychosocial outcomes were nonsignificant (g=0.15, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.33; P=.11; τ2=0.06; I2=56.6%; k=12; kes=41). However, for psychosocial outcomes, Schouten et al [44] was an influential study, such that when removed, the effect size was statistically significant (g=0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.29). Heterogeneity data for psychosocial outcomes were slightly above our threshold, and the 95% prediction interval was –0.43 to 0.73. Findings were consistent across correlation values and like those based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6). For assessment of bias due to publication status in studies testing dCBI as an addition to usual care, Figures S5 and S6 in Multimedia Appendix 7 do not suggest an association between SE and effect size.

    dCBI Compared to CBI Delivered by a Therapist

    A small number of studies in this review examined dCBI in comparison to CBI delivered by a therapist. These studies showed a nonsignificant effect for consumption (g=0.18, 95% CI –0.23 to 0.59; P=.27; τ2=0.11; I2=42.41%; k=5; kes=21) and psychosocial outcomes (g<0.01, 95% CI –0.24 to 0.24; P=.99; τ2=0.01; I2=25.2%; k=5; kes=15) over follow-up. Heterogeneity data did not suggest the need for further moderator analysis or calculation of prediction intervals. Findings were consistent across correlation weights and like those based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6). For assessment of bias due to publication status in studies testing dCBI compared to CBI delivered by a therapist, Figures S7 and S8 in Multimedia Appendix 7 do not suggest an association between SE and effect size.

    dCBI Change From Baseline

    While between-group effect sizes offer a measure of intervention effect compared to some form of control, within-group effect sizes provide information on the extent of change after receiving the intervention. For consumption outcomes over follow-up, the effect was large, positive, and statistically significant (g=0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.80; P<.001; τ2=0.12; I2=92.6%; k=45; kes=201). Psychosocial outcomes were slightly smaller in magnitude, but the pattern of results was similar (g=0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.66; P<.001; τ2=0.18; I2=94.4%; k=36; kes=131). Heterogeneity data suggested the utility of further moderation analyses. The 95% prediction interval suggests that future studies of dCBI for AOD may observe within-group consumption effect sizes ranging from 0.01 to 1.41 and psychosocial effect sizes ranging from –0.35 to 1.39. Findings were consistent across correlation weights and like those based on traditional meta-analytic methods (Multimedia Appendix 6).

    Moderation of Heterogeneous Effect Sizes

    This study considered outcome class and comparison type as subgroup moderators to derive pooled effect sizes describing dCBI for AOD. However, significant residual heterogeneity was observed when dCBI was compared to minimal treatment (consumption and psychosocial outcomes), another treatment (consumption outcomes), when CBI was added to usual care and compared to usual care alone (psychosocial outcomes), and when within-dCBI effect sizes were estimated (consumption and psychosocial outcomes). In these sensitivity analyses, outcome time point (ie, posttreatment to 3 months vs 4 months or later) and primary drug targeted (ie, alcohol, polydrug, and other) were selected as study-level moderators in multivariate, correlated effects meta-regression models. For dCBI consumption outcomes in contrast to a minimal control, early follow-up studies were associated with smaller effect sizes than later follow-up studies, and polydrug studies showed smaller effects than alcohol studies. For dCBI psychosocial outcomes in contrast to a minimal control, polydrug studies also showed smaller effects than alcohol studies. The remaining pooled effect estimates, time point, and primary drug targeted were not significantly associated with effect size magnitude (see Table 3 for details).

    Table 3. Moderation of heterogeneous pooled effect sizes.
    ComparisonConsumptionPsychosocial

    		b (SE)dfP valueb (SE)dfP value
    dCBIa compared to assessment only or minimal treatmentb

    		Estimate0.35 (0.08)c18.81<.0010.21 (0.06)8.63.01

    		Time point–0.18 (0.09)20.27.0480.02 (0.13)7.86.91

    		Polydrug–0.57 (0.08)18.81<.001–0.21 (0.06)8.63.01

    		Other–0.05 (0.13)9.17.72–0.11 (0.12)6.94.38
    dCBI compared to another treatment or treatment as usuald—e——

    		Estimate–0.29 (0.28)5.63f.34



    		Time point0.27 (0.24)8.10f.30



    		Polydrug0.85 (0.28)1.66f.12



    		Other0.40 (0.29)5.93f.21


    dCBI as an addition to treatment as usualg

    		Estimate


    		0.22 (0.14)5.66f.17

    		Time point


    		–0.25 (0.12)6.11f.08

    		Polydrug


    		0.05 (0.20)6.49f.80

    		Other


    		–0.15 (0.22)1.74f.58
    dCBI change from baselineh

    		Estimate0.77 (0.06)28.8<.0010.56 (0.11)19.70<.001

    		Time point–0.06 (0.07)33.4.43–0.02 (0.10)25.90.86

    		Polydrug———0.15 (0.18)10.30.44

    		Other–0.12 (0.11)24.2.27–0.21 (0.14)18.50.15

    adCBI: digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based intervention.

    bConsumption: I2=84.24, τ2=0.09; psychosocial: I2=70.34, τ2=0.05.

    cValues in italics format indicate estimates significant at P<.05.

    dConsumption: I2=78.70, τ2=0.13.

    eNot applicable.

    fEstimates <4 df unstable.

    gPsychosocial: I2=60.36, τ2=0.08.

    hConsumption: I2=92.49, τ2=0.12; psychosocial: I2=94.31, τ2=0.18.

    Pooled Effect Sizes for Each Outcome Type

    In this meta-analysis, 13 outcomes reported across 65 clinical trials of dCBI for AOD were aggregated into consumption and psychosocial outcome classes. In this final sensitivity analysis, we examined each outcome type individually to report pooled effect direction, magnitude, significance, and relative heterogeneity. The results of these analyses are separated by between- and within-group effect size types and are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Figure 2 shows between-group effects, where all pooled effect sizes were positive and mostly small in magnitude. Statistically significant pooled estimates were observed for abstinence, frequency, quantity, use severity, consequences, other drug use, and mental health, but not heavy frequency, peak consumption, cognitive outcomes, coping outcomes, general health, and quality of life. Estimates of between-study variance, relative to sampling error, showed that heterogeneity was still above moderate in most of these estimates. Figure 3 shows within-group effects, where most pooled effect sizes were positive and large in magnitude. Statistically significant pooled estimates were observed for frequency, heavy frequency, peak consumption, quantity, use severity, consequences, other drug use, mental health, and quality of life, but not abstinence, cognitive outcomes, coping outcomes, and general health. Estimates of heterogeneity were above moderate for most subgroup effect sizes.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Between-group effect sizes (with SE) by outcome type. P values are marked to indicate statistical significance: *<.05, **<.01.
    ‎
    Figure 3. Within-group effect sizes (with SE) by outcome type. P values are marked to indicate statistical significance: *<.05, **<.01.

    Overview

    This is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of dCBIs for AOD that included measures of psychosocial functioning as well as substance use consumption. The results generated here from 110 publications, involving 65 randomized controlled trials with over 24,000 combined participants, support the efficacy of dCBI at improving substance use and psychosocial outcomes with pooled findings suggesting a small relative benefit. However, more nuanced findings for between-group effects were apparent when studies were separated according to the type of comparison condition, with dCBI showing limited efficacy when compared to another treatment, in-person CBI, and when added to usual care (ie, nonsignificant efficacy in relation to psychosocial outcomes only). In total, 6 of 8 pooled between-group effect sizes showed statistical heterogeneity that was not fully accounted for by the time point of follow-up or the primary drug targeted within the clinical trial. Here, prediction intervals contained a wide range of consumption and psychosocial effect sizes that could be observed for dCBI for AOD in reference to minimal treatment, another treatment, or when added to usual care. Together, these sensitivity analyses suggest that there are unknown methodological or patient population factors driving variability in effects that were not identified by this study. Finally, within-condition effects that provide a nonexperimental estimate of change from baseline indicated significant, heterogeneous, and moderate to large effects for dCBI on consumption and psychosocial outcomes. These effects suggest that, on average, 60% to 80% of individuals who received dCBI showed improvement from baseline across various measures of substance use and functioning.

    As is often the case for meta-analyses of behavioral therapies for substance use disorders [151], including CBT [6], there is little evidence of superior efficacy of dCBI when directly compared with another therapy. Significant and small between-group effects of dCBI were observed for both consumption and psychosocial outcomes when compared to assessment only or minimal treatment, with evidence suggesting larger effects in alcohol studies and for consumption outcomes, at earlier follow-up time points. Yet, dCBIs were not efficacious when compared to another treatment such as treatment as usual or CBI delivered by a therapist. This pattern is consistent with findings of digital mental health interventions more broadly [45,152], such that they appear generally effective at improving symptoms of psychological conditions but are not necessarily more effective than in-person psychotherapeutic interventions. In terms of comparative treatment benefit (ie, between-group effects), when dCBI was provided as an adjunct to treatment as usual, there were significant and small effects on consumption outcomes when compared to treatment as usual alone. However, this significant effect did not extend to psychosocial outcomes. It may be that the beneficial effects of adding dCBI to standard care are most relevant for improving AOD and not general life functioning. It should be noted that fewer studies in this between-group comparison reported psychosocial outcomes compared to consumption outcomes, and the magnitude of the effect size for this between-group comparison was similar to the effect size when all comparisons were combined, which was significant. Thus, sample size may have impacted the statistical inference on psychosocial outcomes for studies evaluating dCBIs as an adjunct to standard care. Furthermore, when one influential study [112] was removed from this analysis, the between-group effect reached statistical significance.

    The findings with respect to substance use consumption outcomes are largely consistent with other meta-analytic examinations of dCBI (or related terminologies) for AOD. For instance, our prior meta-analysis of 15 published clinical trials of technology-delivered CBT for alcohol use found a significant and small effect as a stand-alone treatment in contrast to minimal treatment (g=0.20), but the effect was nonsignificant when compared to a more active control [14]. Most recently, Gregory et al [13] reported a small, statistically significant effect (g=–0.23) that favored dCBI in reducing substance use (alcohol, drugs, or alcohol or drugs combined) relative to controls in a meta-analysis of 18 published studies. Of note, the current meta-analysis is more comprehensive than existing reports both in terms of the number of studies included and the type and number of outcomes reported.

    This is the first report of the pooled effect of dCBI on various psychosocial outcomes, including consequences of AOD, mental health symptoms, general health, quality of life, cognitive outcomes, and coping outcomes. This provides a more robust evaluation of dCBI efficacy and effects in terms of expanded definitions of recovery beyond alcohol or drug abstinence [15,153,154]. Although significant between-group effects demonstrating the efficacy of dCBI on psychosocial outcomes were more limited in scope as compared to consumption outcomes, it is notable that pooled between-group effect sizes for consequences and mental health outcomes were significant, as problems in these areas are often among the reasons for seeking treatment for AOD [155]. The within-group findings (ie, not compared to a control condition), while statistically heterogeneous, suggest that dCBI is effective at reducing other drug use and consequences from AOD, as well as improving mental health and quality of life. Thus, dCBI as an intervention can have a beneficial effect on some psychosocial outcomes, but the benefit across multiple domains may not be superior to that achieved through another established treatment for AOD.

    Strengths, Limitations, and Conclusions

    This meta-analysis provides the most comprehensive view of dCBI outcomes to date. Therefore, a key strength of this work was the capacity to extract all available data from primary study reports and to report on 2 broad outcome classes—consumption and psychosocial—as well as 13 different outcome types. The extent of clinical effect data provided is substantial. However, there are some limitations to consider. For example, we prioritized published clinical trials to facilitate consistency in methodology, but it is unknown whether the inclusion of gray literature such as dissertations and conference abstracts would have changed our study findings. While our sample of studies is relatively large for a meta-analysis and certainly larger than dCBI reviews to date, sample size still may have impacted our capacity to observe statistical significance for some pooled effect estimates. Study reporting, however, is transparent as to the number of studies and effect sizes that each pooled effect represents. Reporting of demographic characteristics, especially race or ethnicity, was incomplete across studies, which restricts conclusions regarding generalizability. Limitations in sample sizes for certain outcomes also led to the grouping of measures such as motivation, craving, and self-efficacy into a single outcome type (ie, cognitive outcomes) when there are important conceptual differences between these measures. This limitation underscores the importance of future studies not only reporting all outcome data in descriptive format but also reporting all primary and secondary outcomes. As a result, more stable and informative pooled effect sizes would be possible in the future. It is also the case that some pooled estimates contained significant residual heterogeneity, which suggests that effect estimates were variable within groupings beyond what could be attributed to sampling error. While the primary drug targeted and the time point of follow-up were drivers in some studies, undiscovered moderators are possible. For instance, the varied characteristics of dCBIs included here (eg, range of dose and duration and integration with other evidence-based approaches) may have contributed to effect heterogeneity. The question of what defines CBT for AOD has become more challenging due to its evolution and diffusion over the years, resulting in new forms of CBT that may not fit traditional definitions but that have shared theoretical underpinnings, processes of change, and techniques [156]. Finally, the impact of user engagement on outcomes remains an unanswered question. Low engagement, or the lack of uptake and/or poor adherence, is one of the most widely cited challenges and is considered the greatest barrier to progress in digital mental health [157,158]. The lack of consistent reporting of rates of engagement with the dCBIs in the studies included here precluded an empirical investigation of this issue.

    With these limitations in mind, the results of this meta-analysis show a modest benefit for dCBI as a stand-alone therapy and as an addition to usual care. Importantly, stand-alone effects were observed for consumption outcomes as well as measures of psychosocial functioning. Moreover, the comprehensive approach to outcome extraction resulted in effect estimates for a range of functional end points and suggests that across comparison conditions and length of follow-up, small effects can be observed on various consumption measures, including abstinence and use severity, and on psychosocial measures, such as consequences and mental health symptoms. When change from baseline is examined, the effects are moderate to large and statistically significant for all outcomes except for abstinence, cognitive and coping outcomes, as well as general health. Overall, the results of this meta-analysis provide further evidence supporting the beneficial effect, albeit small, of dCBIs in reducing substance use and suggest that the benefits may extend to some psychosocial outcomes. This is critical because recovery from AOD is not confined to substance use outcomes and should be considered holistically.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank the primary study authors who collected the original data and responded to requests for data.

    Data Availability

    The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Funding

    This research is supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant R01 AA029703; to MM).

    Conflicts of Interest

    BDK receives consulting fees from CBT4CBT LLC outside the submitted work. This conflict is managed by Yale University.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Sample search strategy.

    DOCX File , 19 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based intervention and comparator descriptions.

    DOCX File , 97 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Measures and outcome scoring.

    DOCX File , 56 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    PRISMA checklist.

    DOCX File , 35 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Sample-level risk of bias assessment.

    DOCX File , 57 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 6

    Meta-analysis with study effect sizes averaged to the study level.

    DOCX File , 23 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 7

    Plot of assessment of publication bias.

    DOCX File , 247 KB
    1. GBD 2016 Alcohol and Drug Use Collaborators. The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Psychiatry. Dec 2018;5(12):987-1012. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Connery HS, McHugh RK, Reilly M, Shin S, Greenfield SF. Substance use disorders in global mental health delivery: epidemiology, treatment gap, and implementation of evidence-based treatments. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2020;28(5):316-327. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Grant BF, Goldstein RB, Saha TD, Chou SP, Jung J, Zhang H, et al. Epidemiology of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(8):757-766. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Laudet AB. The case for considering quality of life in addiction research and clinical practice. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2011;6(1):44-55. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    5. McHugh RK, Hearon BA, Otto MW. Cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2010;33(3):511-525. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Magill M, Ray L, Kiluk B, Hoadley A, Bernstein M, Tonigan JS, et al. A meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol or other drug use disorders: treatment efficacy by contrast condition. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019;87(12):1093-1105. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Ray LA, Meredith LR, Kiluk BD, Walthers J, Carroll KM, Magill M. Combined pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with alcohol or substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208279. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Magill M, Helminen EC, Lynch-Gadaleta B, Allen K, Kiluk BD, Ray LA. Cognitive-behavioral interventions for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2025;274:112756. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Harvey AG, Gumport NB. Evidence-based psychological treatments for mental disorders: modifiable barriers to access and possible solutions. Behav Res Ther. 2015;68:1-12. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Carroll KM, Kiluk BD. Cognitive behavioral interventions for alcohol and drug use disorders: through the stage model and back again. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31(8):847-861. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Lattie EG, Stiles-Shields C, Graham AK. An overview of and recommendations for more accessible digital mental health services. Nat Rev Psychol. 2022;1(2):87-100. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Gushken F, Costa GPA, de Paula Souza A, Heringer D, Anand A. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorder: a systematic review of evidence and future potential. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2025;171:209627. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Gregory VL, Wilkerson DA, Wolfe-Taylor SN, Miller BL, Lipsey AD. Digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for substance use: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2024;50(6):771-785. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Kiluk BD, Ray LA, Walthers J, Bernstein M, Tonigan JS, Magill M. Technology-delivered cognitive-behavioral interventions for alcohol use: a meta-analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019;43(11):2285-2295. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Hagman BT, Falk D, Litten R, Koob GF. Defining recovery from alcohol use disorder: development of an NIAAA Research Definition. Am J Psychiatry. 2022;179(11):807-813. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Karlsson P, Bergmark A. Compared with what? An analysis of control-group types in Cochrane and Campbell reviews of psychosocial treatment efficacy with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2015;110(3):420-428. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Black N, Mullan B, Sharpe L. Computer-delivered interventions for reducing alcohol consumption: meta-analysis and meta-regression using behaviour change techniques and theory. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):341-357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Elliott JC, Garey L, Carey MP. Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: a meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32(8):690-703. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Dedert EA, McDuffie JR, Stein R, McNiel JM, Kosinski AS, Freiermuth CE, et al. Electronic interventions for alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorders: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(3):205-214. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Garnett C, Crane D, Brown J, Kaner E, Beyer F, Muirhead C, et al. Reported theory use by digital interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption, and association with effectiveness: meta-regression. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2):e69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Hedman E, Ljótsson B, Lindefors N. Cognitive behavior therapy via the internet: a systematic review of applications, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(6):745-764. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Hoch E, Preuss UW, Ferri M, Simon R. Digital interventions for problematic cannabis users in non-clinical settings: findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Addict Res. 2016;22(5):233-242. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Kaner EF, Beyer FR, Garnett C, Crane D, Brown J, Muirhead C, et al. Personalised digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in community-dwelling populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9(9):CD011479. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Magwood O, Saad A, Ranger D, Volpini K, Rukikamirera F, Haridas R, et al. Mobile apps to reduce depressive symptoms and alcohol use in youth: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024;20(2):e1398. [CrossRef]
    25. Moon WH, Lee M, Kim SK, Go Y. Effectiveness of mobile apps and text message to manage alcohol consumptionsystematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Forum. 2024;34(3s):8-20. [CrossRef]
    26. Olmos A, Tirado-Muñoz J, Farré M, Torrens M. The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2018;79:52-60. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Riper H, Blankers M, Hadiwijaya H, Cunningham J, Clarke S, Wiers R, et al. Effectiveness of guided and unguided low-intensity internet interventions for adult alcohol misuse: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99912. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Rooke S, Thorsteinsson E, Karpin A, Copeland J, Allsop D. Computer-delivered interventions for alcohol and tobacco use: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2010;105(8):1381-1390. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Uhl S, Bloschichak A, Moran A, McShea K, Nunemaker MS, McKay JR, et al. Telehealth for substance use disorders: a rapid review for the 2021 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Guidelines for Management of Substance Use Disorders. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(5):691-700. [CrossRef]
    30. White A, Kavanagh D, Stallman H, Klein B, Kay-Lambkin F, Proudfoot J, et al. Online alcohol interventions: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(5):e62. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 3rd Edition, Test Rev. Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association; 1987.
    32. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Edition. Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
    33. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
    34. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th Edition. Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
    35. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption—II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791-804. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Hester RK, Delaney HD. Behavioral self-control program for windows: results of a controlled clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65(4):686-693. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Wallace P, Murray E, McCambridge J, Khadjesari Z, White IR, Thompson SG, et al. On-line randomized controlled trial of an internet based psychologically enhanced intervention for people with hazardous alcohol consumption. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e14740. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Chander G, Hutton HE, Xu X, Canan CE, Gaver J, Finkelstein J, et al. Computer delivered intervention for alcohol and sexual risk reduction among women attending an urban sexually transmitted infection clinic: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav Rep. 2021;14:100367. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Kelpin SS, Parlier-Ahmad AB, Jallo N, Carroll K, Svikis DS. A pilot randomized trial of CBT4CBT for women in residential treatment for substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2022;132:108622. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Paris M, Silva M, Añez-Nava L, Jaramillo Y, Kiluk BD, Gordon MA, et al. Culturally adapted, web-based cognitive behavioral therapy for Spanish-speaking individuals with substance use disorders: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):1535-1542. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Brief DJ, Rubin A, Keane TM, Enggasser JL, Roy M, Helmuth E, et al. Web intervention for OEF/OIF veterans with problem drinking and PTSD symptoms: a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(5):890-900. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Deady M, Mills KL, Teesson M, Kay-Lambkin F. An online intervention for co-occurring depression and problematic alcohol use in young people: primary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3):e71. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Cunningham JA. Comparison of two internet-based interventions for problem drinkers: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(4):e107. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Schouten MJE, Goudriaan AE, Schaub MP, Dekker JJM, Blankers M. Effectiveness of a digital alcohol intervention as an add-on to depression treatment for young adults: results of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med. 2024;54(11):2887-2898. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Davies EB, Morriss R, Glazebrook C. Computer-delivered and web-based interventions to improve depression, anxiety, and psychological well-being of university students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(5):e130. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Acosta MC, Possemato K, Maisto SA, Marsch LA, Barrie K, Lantinga L, et al. Web-delivered CBT reduces heavy drinking in OEF-OIF veterans in primary care with symptomatic substance use and PTSD. Behavior Therapy. 2017;48(2):262-276. [CrossRef]
    47. Andersson C. Comparison of WEB and interactive voice response (IVR) methods for delivering brief alcohol interventions to hazardous-drinking university students: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Addict Res. 2015;21(5):240-252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Augsburger M, Kaal E, Ülesoo T, Wenger A, Blankers M, Haug S, et al. Effects of a minimal-guided on-line intervention for alcohol misuse in Estonia: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2022;117(1):108-117. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Baumgartner C, Schaub MP, Wenger A, Malischnig D, Augsburger M, Lehr D, et al. "Take Care of You"—efficacy of integrated, minimal-guidance, internet-based self-help for reducing co-occurring alcohol misuse and depression symptoms in adults: results of a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;225:108806. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Baumgartner C, Schaub MP, Wenger A, Malischnig D, Augsburger M, Walter M, et al. CANreduce 2.0 adherence-focused guidance for internet self-help among cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e27463. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Berman AH, Molander O, Tahir M, Törnblom P, Gajecki M, Sinadinovic K, et al. Reducing risky alcohol use smartphone app skills training among adult internet help-seekers: a randomized pilot trial. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:434. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Blankers M, Koeter MWJ, Schippers GM. Internet therapy versus internet self-help versus no treatment for problematic alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79(3):330-341. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Bonar EE, Goldstick JE, Chapman L, Bauermeister JA, Young SD, McAfee J, et al. A social media intervention for cannabis use among emerging adults: randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;232:109345. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Brendryen H, Lund IO, Johansen AB, Riksheim M, Nesvåg S, Duckert F. Balance—a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of an online intensive self-help alcohol intervention. Addiction. Feb 2014;109(2):218-226. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Budney AJ, Stanger C, Tilford JM, Scherer EB, Brown PC, Li Z, et al. Computer-assisted behavioral therapy and contingency management for cannabis use disorder. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015;29(3):501-511. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Campbell ANC, Nunes EV, Matthews AG, Stitzer M, Miele GM, Polsky D, et al. Internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(6):683-690. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Campbell ANC, Rieckmann T, Pavlicova M, Choo T-H, Molina K, McDonell M, et al. Culturally tailored digital therapeutic for substance use disorders with urban Indigenous people in the United States: a randomized controlled study. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2023;155:209159. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Carroll KM, Ball SA, Martino S, Nich C, Babuscio TA, Nuro KF, et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy for addiction: a randomized trial of CBT4CBT. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(7):881-888. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Carroll KM, Kiluk BD, Nich C, Gordon MA, Portnoy GA, Marino DR, et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy: efficacy and durability of CBT4CBT among cocaine-dependent individuals maintained on methadone. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(4):436-444. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Carroll KM, Nich C, DeVito EE, Shi JM, Sofuoglu M. Galantamine and computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for cocaine dependence: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(1):17m11669. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Christensen DR, Landes RD, Jackson L, Marsch LA, Mancino MJ, Chopra MP, et al. Adding an internet-delivered treatment to an efficacious treatment package for opioid dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82(6):964-972. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Daros AR, Guimond TH, Yager C, Palermo EH, Wilks CR, Quilty LC. Feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a self-guided internet-delivered dialectical behavior therapy intervention for substance use disorders: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2024;11:e50399. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Farren CK, Milnes J, Lambe K, Ahern S. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for alcohol use disorder: a pilot randomised control trial. Ir J Psychol Med. 2015;32(3):237-246. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Gajecki M, Andersson C, Rosendahl I, Sinadinovic K, Fredriksson M, Berman AH. Skills training via smartphone app for university students with excessive alcohol consumption: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Med. 2017;24(5):778-788. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Glasner S, Chokron Garneau H, Ang A, Ray L, Venegas A, Rawson R, et al. Preliminary efficacy of a cognitive behavioral therapy text messaging intervention targeting alcohol use and antiretroviral therapy adherence: a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0229557. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Gonzalez VM, Dulin PL. Comparison of a smartphone app for alcohol use disorders with an Internet-based intervention plus bibliotherapy: a pilot study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015;83(2):335-345. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Guarino H, Fong C, Marsch LA, Acosta MC, Syckes C, Moore SK, et al. Web-based cognitive behavior therapy for chronic pain patients with aberrant drug-related behavior: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Pain Med. 2018;19(12):2423-2437. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Guillemont J, Cogordan C, Nalpas B, Nguyen-Thanh V, Richard JB, Arwidson P. Effectiveness of a web-based intervention to reduce alcohol consumption among French hazardous drinkers: a randomized controlled trial. Health Educ Res. 2017;32(4):332-342. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Hester RK, Delaney HD, Campbell W. ModerateDrinking.Com and moderation management: outcomes of a randomized clinical trial with non-dependent problem drinkers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79(2):215-224. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Hester RK, Lenberg KL, Campbell W, Delaney HD. Overcoming addictions, a web-based application, and SMART Recovery, an online and in-person mutual help group for problem drinkers, part 1: three-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):e134. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Hyland K, Hammarberg A, Hedman-Lagerlöf E, Johansson M, Lindner P, Andreasson S. The efficacy of an internet-based cognitive behavioral program added to treatment-as-usual for alcohol-dependent patients in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2023;118(7):1232-1243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Johansson M, Berman AH, Sinadinovic K, Lindner P, Hermansson U, Andréasson S. Effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for harmful alcohol use and alcohol dependence as self-help or with therapist guidance: three-armed randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e29666. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Johansson M, Sinadinovic K, Gajecki M, Lindner P, Berman AH, Hermansson U, et al. Internet-based therapy versus face-to-face therapy for alcohol use disorder, a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Addiction. 2021;116(5):1088-1100. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Kelly B, Lewin TJ. Clinician-assisted computerised versus therapist-delivered treatment for depressive and addictive disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust. 2011;195(S3):S44-S50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Carr VJ. Computer-based psychological treatment for comorbid depression and problematic alcohol and/or cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial of clinical efficacy. Addiction. 2009;104(3):378-388. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Kiluk BD, Devore KA, Buck MB, Nich C, Frankforter TL, LaPaglia DM, et al. Randomized trial of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorders: efficacy as a virtual stand-alone and treatment add-on compared with standard outpatient treatment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016;40(9):1991-2000. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Kiluk BD, Nich C, Buck MB, Devore KA, Frankforter TL, LaPaglia DM, et al. Randomized clinical trial of computerized and clinician-delivered CBT in comparison with standard outpatient treatment for substance use disorders: primary within-treatment and follow-up outcomes. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(9):853-863. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Kramer J, Riper H, Lemmers L, Conijn B, van Straten A, Smit F. Television-supported self-help for problem drinkers: a randomized pragmatic trial. Addict Behav. 2009;34(5):451-457. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Leeman RF, DeMartini KS, Gueorguieva R, Nogueira C, Corbin WR, Neighbors C, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a very brief, multicomponent web-based alcohol intervention for undergraduates with a focus on protective behavioral strategies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016;84(11):1008-1015. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Marsch LA, Guarino H, Acosta M, Aponte-Melendez Y, Cleland C, Grabinski M, et al. Web-based behavioral treatment for substance use disorders as a partial replacement of standard methadone maintenance treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(1):43-51. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Mujcic A, Blankers M, Boon B, Berman AH, Riper H, van Laar M, et al. Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of a digital alcohol moderation intervention for cancer survivors: health economic evaluation and outcomes of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e30095. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. O'Donnell R, Richardson B, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Staiger PK. Delivering personalized protective behavioral drinking strategies via a smartphone intervention: a pilot study. Int J Behav Med. 2019;26(4):401-414. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Olthof MIA, Goudriaan AE, van Laar MW, Blankers M. A guided digital intervention to reduce cannabis use: the ICan randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2023;118(9):1775-1786. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Riper H, Kramer J, Smit F, Conijn B, Schippers G, Cuijpers P. Web-based self-help for problem drinkers: a pragmatic randomized trial. Addiction. 2008;103(2):218-227. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Rooke S, Copeland J, Norberg M, Hine D, McCambridge J. Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e26. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Schaub MP, Castro RP, Wenger A, Baumgartner C, Stark L, Ebert DD, et al. Web-based self-help with and without chat counseling to reduce cocaine use in cocaine misusers: results of a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv. 2019;17:100251. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Schaub MP, Wenger A, Berg O, Beck T, Stark L, Buehler E, et al. A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(10):e232. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Schaub M, Sullivan R, Haug S, Stark L. Web-based cognitive behavioral self-help intervention to reduce cocaine consumption in problematic cocaine users: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e166. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Shi JM, Henry SP, Dwy SL, Orazietti SA, Carroll KM. Randomized pilot trial of Web-based cognitive-behavioral therapy adapted for use in office-based buprenorphine maintenance. Subst Abus. 2019;40(2):132-135. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Sinadinovic K, Johansson M, Johansson AS, Lundqvist T, Lindner P, Hermansson U. Guided web-based treatment program for reducing cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020;15(1):9. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Sinadinovic K, Wennberg P, Johansson M, Berman AH. Targeting individuals with problematic alcohol use via Web-based cognitive-behavioral self-help modules, personalized screening feedback or assessment only: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(6):305-318. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Stapinski LA, Prior K, Newton NC, Biswas RK, Kelly E, Deady M, et al. Are we making Inroads? A randomized controlled trial of a psychologist-supported, web-based, cognitive behavioral therapy intervention to reduce anxiety and hazardous alcohol use among emerging adults. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;39:101048. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Sunami T, So R, Ishii H, Sadashima E, Ueno T, Yuzuriha T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the web-based drinking diary program for problem drinking in multi workplace settings. J Occup Health. 2022;64(1):e12312. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Sundström C, Eék N, Kraepelien M, Fahlke C, Gajecki M, Jakobson M, et al. High- versus low-intensity internet interventions for alcohol use disorders: results of a three-armed randomized controlled superiority trial. Addiction. 2020;115(5):863-874. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Tait RJ, McKetin R, Kay-Lambkin F, Carron-Arthur B, Bennett A, Bennett K, et al. A web-based intervention for users of amphetamine-type stimulants: 3-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2014;1(1):e1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Takano A, Miyamoto Y, Shinozaki T, Matsumoto T, Kawakami N. Effects of a web-based relapse prevention program on abstinence: secondary subgroup analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychopharmacol Rep. 2022;42(3):362-367. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Tetrault JM, Holt SR, Cavallo DA, O'Connor PG, Gordon MA, Corvino JK, et al. Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for substance use disorders in a specialized primary care practice: a randomized feasibility trial to address the RT component of SBIRT. J Addict Med. 2020;14(6):e303-e309. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Tiburcio M, Lara MA, Martínez N, Fernández M, Aguilar A. Web-based intervention to reduce substance abuse and depression: a three arm randomized trial in mexico. Subst Use Misuse. 2018;53(13):2220-2231. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Wilks CR, Lungu A, Ang SY, Matsumiya B, Yin Q, Linehan MM. A randomized controlled trial of an Internet delivered dialectical behavior therapy skills training for suicidal and heavy episodic drinkers. J Affect Disord. 2018;232:219-228. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Zill JM, Christalle E, Meyer B, Härter M, Dirmaier J. The effectiveness of an internet intervention aimed at reducing alcohol consumption in adults. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116(8):127-133. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Hedges LV. Statistical considerations. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY. Russell Sage Foundation; 1994:29-38.
    103. Frohlich JR, Rapinda KK, Schaub MP, Wenger A, Baumgartner C, Johnson EA, et al. Efficacy of a minimally guided internet treatment for alcohol misuse and emotional problems in young adults: results of a randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav Rep. 2021;14:100390. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San Diego, CA. Academic Press; 1985.
    105. Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486-504. [CrossRef]
    106. Fisher Z, Tipton E, Zhipeng H. robumeta: robust variance meta-regression. Github. 2017. URL: https://github.com/zackfisher/robumeta [accessed 2026-03-19]
    107. Tipton E. Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychol Methods. 2015;20(3):375-393. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Fisher Z, Tipton E. robumeta: an R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. Github. 2015. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02220 [accessed 2026-03-19]
    109. Borenstein M. Research note: In a meta-analysis, the I2 index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies. J Physiother. 2020;66(2):135-139. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Liang D, Han H, Du J, Zhao M, Hser YI. A pilot study of a smartphone application supporting recovery from drug addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018;88:51-58. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Takano A, Miyamoto Y, Shinozaki T, Matsumoto T, Kawakami N. Effect of a web-based relapse prevention program on abstinence among Japanese drug users: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;111:37-46. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Acosta MC, Marsch LA, Xie H, Guarino H, Aponte-Melendez Y. A web-based behavior therapy program influences the association between cognitive functioning and retention and abstinence in clients receiving methadone maintenance treatment. J Dual Diagn. 2012;8(4):283-293. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Ahlers J, Baumgartner C, Augsburger M, Wenger A, Malischnig D, Boumparis N, et al. Cannabis use in adults who screen positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: CANreduce 2.0 randomized controlled trial subgroup analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(4):e30138. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Benitez B, Frankforter T, Nich C, Kiluk BD. The rise and fall of substance use during treatment: applying recency and expectancy principles to daily substance use patterns. Psychol Addict Behav. 2023;37(2):235-246. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Buckheit KA, Nolan J, Possemato K, Maisto S, Rosenblum A, Acosta M, et al. Insomnia predicts treatment engagement and symptom change: a secondary analysis of a web-based CBT intervention for veterans with PTSD symptoms and hazardous alcohol use. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12(1):ibab118. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Campbell ANC, Nunes EV, Pavlicova M, Hatch-Maillette M, Hu M-C, Bailey GL, et al. Gender-based outcomes and acceptability of a computer-assisted psychosocial intervention for substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;53:9-15. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Campbell W, Hester RK, Lenberg KL, Delaney HD. Overcoming addictions, a web-based application, and SMART recovery, an online and in-person mutual help group for problem drinkers, part 2: six-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial and qualitative feedback from participants. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(10):e262. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Carroll KM, Ball SA, Martino S, Nich C, Babuscio TA, Rounsaville BJ. Enduring effects of a computer-assisted training program for cognitive behavioral therapy: a 6-month follow-up of CBT4CBT. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;100(1-2):178-181. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Carroll KM, Herman A, DeVito EE, Frankforter TL, Potenza MN, Sofuoglu M. Catehol-o-methyltransferase gene val158met polymorphism as a potential predictor of response to computer-assisted delivery of cognitive-behavioral therapy among cocaine-dependent individuals: preliminary findings from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Addict. 2015;24(5):443-451. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Cochran G, Stitzer M, Campbell ANC, Hu MC, Vandrey R, Nunes EV. Web-based treatment for substance use disorders: differential effects by primary substance. Addict Behav. 2015;45:191-194. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Decker SE, Morie KP, Malin-Mayo B, Nich C, Carroll KM. Positive and negative affect in cocaine use disorder treatment: change across time and relevance to treatment outcome. Am J Addict. 2018;27(5):375-382. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. DeVito EE, Kiluk BD, Nich C, Mouratidis M, Carroll KM. Drug stroop: mechanisms of response to computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for cocaine dependence in a randomized clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;183:162-168. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. DeVito EE, Kober H, Carroll KM, Potenza MN. fMRI Stroop and behavioral treatment for cocaine-dependence: preliminary findings in methadone-maintained individuals. Addict Behav. 2019;89:10-14. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Enggasser JL, Hermos JA, Rubin A, Lachowicz M, Rybin D, Brief DJ, et al. Drinking goal choice and outcomes in a web-based alcohol intervention: results from VetChange. Addict Behav. 2015;42:63-68. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Handley TE, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Kelly BJ, Inder KJ, et al. Incidental treatment effects of CBT on suicidal ideation and hopelessness. J Affect Disord. 2013;151(1):275-283. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Hester RK, Delaney HD, Campbell W, Handmaker N. A web application for moderation training: initial results of a randomized clinical trial. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37(3):266-276. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Jaramillo Y, DeVito EE, Frankforter T, Silva MA, Añez LM, Kiluk BD, et al. Religiosity and spirituality in latinx individuals with substance use disorders: association with treatment outcomes in a randomized clinical trial. J Relig Health. 2022;61(5):4139-4154. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Kacmarek CN, Yates BT, Nich C, Kiluk BD. A pilot economic evaluation of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorder as an addition and alternative to traditional therapy. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2021;45(5):1109-1121. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    130. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Kelly BJ, Lewin TJ. It's worth a try: the treatment experiences of rural and Urban participants in a randomized controlled trial of computerized psychological treatment for comorbid depression and alcohol/other drug use. J Dual Diagnosis. 2012;8(4):262-276. [CrossRef]
    131. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Palazzi K, Lewin TJ, Kelly BJ. Therapeutic alliance, client need for approval, and perfectionism as differential moderators of response to eHealth and traditionally delivered treatments for comorbid depression and substance use problems. Int J Behav Med. 2017;24(5):728-739. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Kiluk BD, DeVito EE, Buck MB, Hunkele K, Nich C, Carroll KM. Effect of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy on acquisition of coping skills among cocaine-dependent individuals enrolled in methadone maintenance. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017;82:87-92. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Kiluk BD, Frankforter TL, Cusumano M, Nich C, Carroll KM. Change in DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria count and severity level as a treatment outcome indicator: results from a randomized trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018;42(8):1556-1563. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Kiluk BD, Nich C, Babuscio T, Carroll KM. Quality versus quantity: acquisition of coping skills following computerized cognitive-behavioral therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2010;105(12):2120-2127. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Kiluk BD, Serafini K, Frankforter T, Nich C, Carroll KM. Only connect: the working alliance in computer-based cognitive behavioral therapy. Behav Res Ther. 2014;63:139-146. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Kim SJ, Marsch LA, Acosta MC, Guarino H, Aponte-Melendez Y. Can persons with a history of multiple addiction treatment episodes benefit from technology delivered behavior therapy? A moderating role of treatment history at baseline. Addict Behav. 2016;54:18-23. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Kim SJ, Marsch LA, Guarino H, Acosta MC, Aponte-Melendez Y. Predictors of outcome from computer-based treatment for substance use disorders: results from a randomized clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;157:174-178. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Lévesque A, Campbell ANC, Pavlicova M, Hu MC, Walker R, McClure EA, et al. Coping strategies as a mediator of internet-delivered psychosocial treatment: secondary analysis from a NIDA CTN multisite effectiveness trial. Addict Behav. 2017;65:74-80. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    139. Luderer HF, Campbell ANC, Nunes EV, Enman NM, Xiong X, Gerwien R, et al. Engagement patterns with a digital therapeutic for substance use disorders: correlations with abstinence outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2022;132:108585. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Mitchell SG, Schwartz RP, Alvanzo AAH, Weisman MS, Kyle TL, Turrigiano EM, et al. The use of technology in participant tracking and study retention: lessons learned from a clinical trials network study. Subst Abus. 2015;36(4):420-426. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Morie KP, Nich C, Hunkele K, Potenza MN, Carroll KM. Alexithymia level and response to computer-based training in cognitive behavioral therapy among cocaine-dependent methadone maintained individuals. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;152:157-163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    142. Mujcic A, Linke S, Hamilton F, Phillips A, Khadjesari Z. Engagement with motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy components of a web-based alcohol intervention, elicitation of change talk and sustain talk, and impact on drinking outcomes: secondary data analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e17285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    143. Murphy SM, Campbell ANC, Ghitza UE, Kyle TL, Bailey GL, Nunes EV, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an internet-delivered treatment for substance abuse: data from a multisite randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;161:119-126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    144. Riper H, Kramer J, Keuken M, Smit F, Schippers G, Cuijpers P. Predicting successful treatment outcome of web-based self-help for problem drinkers: secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(4):e46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    145. Roos CR, Carroll KM, Nich C, Frankforter T, Kiluk BD. Short- and long-term changes in substance-related coping as mediators of in-person and computerized CBT for alcohol and drug use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;212:108044. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Roos CR, Kiluk BD, McHugh RK, Carroll KM. Evaluating a longitudinal mediation model of perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and substance use treatment outcomes. Psychol Addict Behav. 2020;34(6):660-668. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    147. Silva MA, Jaramillo Y, Paris M, Añez-Nava L, Frankforter TL, Kiluk BD. Changes in DSM criteria following a culturally-adapted computerized CBT for Spanish-speaking individuals with substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;110:42-48. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    148. Tait RJ, McKetin R, Kay-Lambkin F, Carron-Arthur B, Bennett A, Bennett K, et al. Six-month outcomes of a Web-based intervention for users of amphetamine-type stimulants: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e105. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    149. Velez FF, Malone DC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a prescription digital therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2021;9(1):1966187. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    150. Xie H, Guarino H, Moore SK, Acosta M, Budney AJ, Rosenblum A, et al. Web-based cognitive behavior therapy for chronic pain patients with aberrant drug-related behavior: how did it work and for whom? J Behav Med. 2021;44(5):704-714. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    151. Dellazizzo L, Potvin S, Giguère S, Landry C, Léveillé N, Dumais A. Meta-review on the efficacy of psychological therapies for the treatment of substance use disorders. Psychiatry Res. 2023;326:115318. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    152. Hedman-Lagerlöf E, Carlbring P, Svärdman F, Riper H, Cuijpers P, Andersson G. Therapist-supported Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy yields similar effects as face-to-face therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 2023;22(2):305-314. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Zemore SE, Ziemer KL, Gilbert PA, Karno MP, Kaskutas LA. Understanding the shared meaning of recovery from substance use disorders: new findings from the what is recovery? study. Subst Abuse. 2023;17:11782218231199372. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    154. Ashford RD, Brown A, Brown T, Callis J, Cleveland HH, Eisenhart E, et al. Defining and operationalizing the phenomena of recovery: a working definition from the recovery science research collaborative. Addict Res Theory. 2019;27(3):179-188. [CrossRef]
    155. Gressler LE, Natafgi NM, DeForge BR, Shaneman-Robinson B, Welsh C, Shaya FT. What motivates people with substance use disorders to pursue treatment? A patient-centered approach to understanding patient experiences and patient-provider interactions. J Subst Use. 2019;24(6):587-599. [CrossRef]
    156. Magill M, Kiluk BD, Ray LA. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol and other drug use disorders: is a one-size-fits-all approach appropriate? Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2023;14:1-11. [CrossRef]
    157. Torous J, Linardon J, Goldberg SB, Sun S, Bell I, Nicholas J, et al. The evolving field of digital mental health: current evidence and implementation issues for smartphone apps, generative artificial intelligence, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry. 2025;24(2):156-174. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    158. Nwosu A, Boardman S, Husain MM, Doraiswamy PM. Digital therapeutics for mental health: is attrition the Achilles heel? Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:900615. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AOD: alcohol and other drug use
    CBI: cognitive behaviorally based intervention
    CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy
    dCBI: digitally delivered cognitive behaviorally based intervention
    DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

    Edited by J Torous; submitted 13.Aug.2025; peer-reviewed by V Gregory, A Anand; comments to author 17.Oct.2025; revised version received 28.Jan.2026; accepted 30.Jan.2026; published 19.May.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Brian D Kiluk, Lara A Ray, Omeed Tartak, Lovisa Werner, Thomas A Trikalinos, Molly Magill. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 19.May.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.