Key result
Offset heart rate biofeedback reduces increases in HRV and craving in response to alcohol cues.
Why the study?
Existing digital and wearable interventions for behavioral health are obtrusive and require attention and motivation, limiting effectiveness during alcohol craving episodes.
Does offset heart rate biofeedback reduce cue-elicited alcohol craving in risky drinkers?
Does offset heart rate biofeedback reduce cue-elicited alcohol craving in risky drinkers?
p-value: P=.01 and P=.052 for HRV; P=.04 and P=.02 for craving
Offset heart rate biofeedback shows potential as a mindless, unobtrusive intervention to mitigate cue-elicited alcohol craving in risky drinkers.
May support offset HR biofeedback for cue-elicited craving in risky drinkers; hypothesis-generating and requires larger trials before clinical use.
BACKGROUND Digital and wearable intervention systems promise to improve how people manage their behavioral health conditions by making interventions available when the user can best benefit from them. However, existing interventions are obtrusive because they require attention and motivation to engage in, limiting the effectiveness of such systems in demanding contexts, such as when the user experiences alcohol craving. Mindless interventions, developed by the human-computer interaction community, offer an opportunity to intervene unobtrusively. Offset heart rate biofeedback is an iconic type of mindless intervention powered by entrainment and can mitigate the physiological and psychological response to stressors. OBJECTIVE This work aimed to characterize the translational effectiveness of offset heart rate biofeedback on cue-elicit alcohol craving among risky drinkers. METHODS We conducted an out-of-lab, between-group, controlled experiment with 26 participants who performed harmful or hazardous drinking. The control group served as negative control and received no intervention, while the experimental group received offset heart rate biofeedback during alcohol exposure and recovery. We elicited alcohol cravings through a series of alcohol cues, including performing mental imagery, viewing alcohol images, and sniffing alcohol. We measured the physiological response to alcohol (ie, heart rate variability), self-reported craving, and self-reported anxiety. We constructed linear mixed-effects models to understand the effect of intervention during alcohol exposure and alcohol recovery after exposure. Following the linear mixed effect model, we conducted pair-wise comparisons for measures between the control and experimental groups. RESULTS We found that offset heart rate biofeedback significantly reduced the increase in heart rate variability (P=.01 and P=.052) and self-reported craving (P=.04 and P=.02) in response to alcohol cues. Participants’ anxiety was not affected by either the alcohol cues or the offset heart rate biofeedback. CONCLUSIONS Offset heart rate biofeedback has the potential to immediately and unobtrusively mitigate cue-elicit alcohol craving among risky drinkers. The results of this study opened new opportunities for digital and wearable interventions to mitigate alcohol craving, either as wellness apps for risky drinkers or as digital prescriptions and integration with sensing systems for people with alcohol dependency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2023) studied Harmful or hazardous drinking (n=26). Offset heart rate biofeedback vs. No intervention was evaluated on Increase in heart rate variability and self-reported craving in response to alcohol cues (p=P=.01 and P=.052 for HRV; P=.04 and P=.02 for craving). Offset heart rate biofeedback significantly reduced the increase in heart rate variability (P=.01 and P=.052) and self-reported craving (P=.04 and P=.02) in response to alcohol cues.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: