Virtual interventions for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including intensive outpatient treatment, were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and later maintained in some clinical settings. However, the effectiveness of this type of intervention in healthcare professionals (HPs) has not been studied so far. This is a quasi-experimental cohort study with both retrospective and prospective data comparing the main treatment outcomes of HPs in treatment for SUDs: (1) 29 patients following a 40-hour synchronous virtual group intervention; and, (2) 31 patients following a an 80-hour in-person group psychotherapy. They both underwent in-person psychiatric and psychological individual treatment as well as addictive drug use monitoring. Logistic regression analyses were performed to find predictors of abstinence from addictive substances and of working status. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to first lapse (positive addictive drug use monitoring). Satisfaction rates at the end of each intervention were also compared in both groups using a non-parametric test. The sample consisted of 60 HPs, with a mean age of 49.5 years (range: 30–67). Of these, 53.3% (n = 32) were women. Physicians represented 53.3% of all patients. Patients in the virtual group were more likely to be working during the intervention compared with those in the in-person group. At one-year follow-up, 55% of the sample remained abstinent from addictive substances. After multivariate analysis, the type of intervention did not predict abstinence when controlling for other variables, although having dual diagnosis was inversely correlated with remaining abstinent (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07–0.85). HPs receiving in-person intervention were more likely to be working one year after the treatment (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 2.1–33.3). Time to first lapse was similar between groups, although the in-person sample showed a more heterogeneous distribution. Satisfaction rates were similar in both groups. Virtual interventions may be an effective alternative to in-person interventions for HPs with SUDs. More studies are needed to more deeply analyze these preliminary findings.
Llavayol et al. (Fri,) studied this question.