Alcohol use disorder treatment via video conferencing compared with in‐person therapy during COVID‐19 social distancing : A non‐inferiority comparison of three cohorts

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundSocial distancing measures during the COVID‐19 pandemic forced an abrupt transformation of treatment delivery for mental health care. In mid‐March 2020, nearly all in‐person contact was replaced with video conferencing. The pandemic thus offered a natural experiment and a unique opportunity to conduct an observational study of whether alcohol use disorder treatment through video conferencing is non‐inferior to in‐person treatment.MethodsIn a large urban substance use disorder treatment center in the Netherlands, treatment evaluation is routine practice. Outcome data are regularly collected to support shared decision making and monitor patient progress. For this study, pre‐test and post‐test data on alcohol use (Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation), psychopathology (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales), and quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life) were used to compare outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy treatment for three cohorts: patients who received treatment for a primary alcohol use disorder performed prior to (n = 628), partially during (n = 557), and entirely during (n = 653) the COVID‐19 lockdown.ResultsOutcome was similar across the three cohorts: No inferior outcomes were found for treatments that were conducted predominantly through video conferencing during lockdown or treatments that started in‐person, but were continued through video conferencing, compared to in‐person treatments that were conducted prior to COVID‐19. The number of drop‐outs were also similar between cohorts. However, there was a difference in average treatment intensity between cohorts, with treatment partially or fully conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic lasting longer.ConclusionsTreatment for a primary alcohol use disorder, provided partially or predominantly through video conferencing during the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in abstinence rates and secondary outcomes similar to traditional in‐person care, in spite of the potentially negative effects of the COVID‐related lockdown measures themselves. These results from everyday clinical practice corroborate findings of randomized controlled studies and meta‐analyses in which video conferencing appeared non‐inferior to in‐person care in clinical effectiveness.