Problem: Summarize the following:
The results indicate that the interventions are effective in reducing both SUD and addictive disorders, including gambling, video games, and Internet use. Some interventions demonstrate favorable behavioral (e.g., reduced frequency of use) or cognitive (e.g., reduced craving beliefs) outcomes, supporting the conclusions of meta-analyses in the context of multiple behavioral addictive disorders (Goslar et al., 2020). The interventions identified were largely effective in improving ER, from attenuation of ER deficits to an increased tendency to use an adapted ER strategy. It should be noted that these improvements are not universal across all interventions. Two studies have demonstrated a lack of statistically significant effect on ER, although they have observed a reduction in symptomology. These findings provide support for the hypothesis that addressing ER, even in a partial manner, could prove beneficial in SUD and addictive disorders treatment. The optimal number of sessions of ER content to produce effects remains to be documented, as does the type of individuals who might best benefit from it. One such group is the emotionally vulnerable gamblers identified by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) in their typological model.
Despite most interventions demonstrating favorable outcomes for both symptomology and ER, the question of whether these outcomes are attributable to the intervention itself remains challenging. Many studies employed research protocols that lack control groups, which constrains our capacity to ascertain the causal relationships between observed effects (Glass et al., 2013). Furthermore, numerous studies were susceptible to substantial biases. Multiple sources of bias were identified, often present in non-pharmaceutical psychological treatment studies. Two examples are the lack of statistical control for dropouts and participants not being blinded to their conditions (Boutron et al., 2007). While the data collection methods were generally well-controlled by using measurement instruments with strong psychometric properties, the fidelity of these instruments was not always reported. On the other hand, blinding and selection bias were typically the least well-controlled factors, likely due to the inclusion of clinical and intervention samples without a control group. All these biases may lead to either underestimating or overestimating treatment effects (Zaugg et al., 2014). In addition, it is impossible to determine the ER intervention's specific impact without comparing it to a standard treatment that does not include an ER component. Only three of the studies reviewed made this comparison, and their results indicate improvements in symptomology (e.g., fewer days of use) and, in two out of three studies, in ER. Nevertheless, 63% of the studies reviewed presented an intervention with a predominantly emotional component, indicating that interventions based largely on ER are sufficient to produce positive effects on ER and reduce symptomatology. Future reviews employing only robust randomized controlled trial designs will elucidate whether incorporating an ER intervention is more efficacious than standard treatment. It is important to note that no meta-analysis was conducted to provide a more precise estimate of effects. A meta-analysis would allow for more robust conclusions and help detect subtle effects that might not be apparent in individual studies. Nevertheless, the use of ER in the treatment of SUD and addictive disorders appears to be a practice that should not be overlooked. Need Assignment Help?