| Literature DB >> 29925497 |
Youwei Zhu1, Haifeng Jiang1, Hang Su1, Na Zhong1, Runji Li2, Xiaotong Li1, Tianzhen Chen1, Haoye Tan1, Jiang Du1, Ding Xu3, Huan Yan4, Dawen Xu4, Min Zhao1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive rehabilitation therapy has been found to improve cognitive deficits and impulse control problems in methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). However, there is limited research regarding this therapy's feasibility when using mobile-based health technologies in supporting recovery from MUD in China.Entities:
Keywords: attention bias; cognitive function; impulse control; methamphetamine; methamphetamine use disorder; risk decision making
Year: 2018 PMID: 29925497 PMCID: PMC6031898 DOI: 10.2196/10292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Methamphetamine-related attention bias modification task. Patients were asked to decide whether the meaning of the word in the left box was consistent with the color of the word on the right. The Chinese word printed in green on the left means “red,” whereas the phrase presented on the right means “smoking methamphetamine.”.
Figure 2Methamphetamine-related attention control training. In situation 1, the border of the methamphetamine-related image was red, and the patients needed to push the “red” button. In situation 2, the border of the neutral picture was yellow, and the patients needed to push the “yellow” button as quickly as possible.
Figure 3Methamphetamine-related working memory training task (N-back task). The previous Figure 2 is an example of 2-back task training. Patients in the CCAT group were asked to decide the whether the figure (both shape and color) on the right was consistent with the figure showing the previous two pictures while ignoring the methamphetamine-related picture on the left.
Figure 4Memory matrix task. A few blue squares were shown for 3 seconds and then they disappeared and returned to the original color. Patients were told to indicate the squares that turned blue that were shown seconds before. An incorrect response resulted in a red cross, whereas a correct response resulted in a green checkmark.
Figure 5CONSORT flowchart of the study. CCAT: computerized cognitive addiction therapy.
Demographic and drug use characteristics of participants (N=40).
| Characteristics | CCATa group (n=20) | Control group (n=20) | χ23 | |||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 32.70 (5.27) | 35.05 (8.02) | 1.200 | .28 | ||
| Education (years), mean (SD) | 10.00 (2.43) | 9.55 (1.36) | 0.525 | .47 | ||
| Age of onset (years), mean (SD) | 24.45 (6.54) | 25.15 (8.56) | 0.084 | .77 | ||
| Abstinence (months), mean (SD) | 4.30 (1.17) | 4.10 (1.18) | 0.224 | .64 | ||
| Duration of methamphetamine use (year), mean (SD) | 6.02 (3.72) | 7.00 (2.73) | 0.891 | .35 | ||
| Dose of methamphetamine use (g/day), mean (SD) | 0.60 (0.31) | 0.66 (0.39) | 0.294 | .59 | ||
| 2.4 | .56 | |||||
| Everyday | 14 (70%) | 10 (50%) | ||||
| 3-5 times a week | 4 (20%) | 8 (40%) | ||||
| Once a week | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | ||||
| 1-3 times a month | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | ||||
aCCAT: computerized cognitive addiction therapy.
Figure 6International Shopping List (ISL) scores before and after intervention. Verbal learning and memory function were evaluated by ISL; scores are total number of correct responses. Significant differences between the two groups (P<.001) are marked by the asterisk. CCAT: computerized cognitive addiction therapy.
Figure 8Social emotional cognition (SEC) task scores before and after intervention. Social cognition was evaluated by the SEC task; SEC scores were assessed by accuracy rate (the proportion of correct responses). Changes in SEC scores did not reach significant level in CCAT group (P=.56), whereas the accuracy rate decreased significantly in the control group (P=.02) as reflected by the asterisk. CCAT: computerized cognitive addiction therapy.
Figure 9Discounting change ln(k) before and after computerized cognitive addiction therapy (CCAT) training. Change in discounting ln(k) for participants in CCAT and control groups, calculated as posttraining minus pretaining. Negative values indicate a decrease in discounting. The values 2, 7, 30, 90, 180, and 360 were delayed times in the delay discounting task.
Figure 10Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) scores after computerized cognitive addiction therapy (CCAT) or control training. The IGT score was calculated through the number of cards from the disadvantageous decks (C and D) subtracted from the advantageous decks (A and B). A positive score reflects the individual had a tendency to make better decisions. The lines are means and the error bars are the standard deviation.