A tutorial on analyzing ecological momentary assessment data in psychological research with Bayesian (generalized) Mixed-Effects models

In this tutorial, we introduce the reader to analyzing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data as applied in psychological sciences with the use of Bayesian (generalized) linear mixed-effects models. We discuss practical advantages of the Bayesian approach over frequentist methods and conceptual differences. We demonstrate how Bayesian statistics can help EMA researchers to (a) incorporate prior knowledge and beliefs in analyses, (b) fit models with a large variety of outcome distributions that reflect likely data-generating processes, (c) quantify the uncertainty of effect-size estimates, and (d) quantify the evidence for or against an informative hypothesis. We present a workflow for Bayesian analyses and provide illustrative examples based on EMA data, which we analyze using (generalized) linear mixed-effects models to test whether daily self-control demands predict three different alcohol outcomes. All examples are reproducible, and data and code are available at https://osf.io/rh2sw/. Having worked through this tutorial, readers should be able to adopt a Bayesian workflow to their own analysis of EMA data

Recovery from addiction: Behavioral economics and value-based decision making.

Behavioral economics provides a general framework to explain the shift in behavioral allocation from substance use to substance-free activities that characterizes recovery from addiction, but it does not attempt to explain the internal processes that prompt those behavioral changes. In this article we outline a novel analysis of addiction recovery based on computational work on value-based decision making (VBDM), which can explain how people with addiction are able to overcome the reinforcement pathologies and decision-making vulnerabilities that characterize the disorder. The central tenet of this account is that shifts in molar reinforcer preferences over time from substance use to substance-free activities can be attributed to changes in evidence accumulation rates and response thresholds in the context of choices involving substance use and substance-free alternatives. We discuss how this account can be reconciled with the established mechanisms of action of psychosocial interventions for addiction and demonstrate how it has the potential to empirically address longstanding debates regarding the nature of impairments to self-control in addiction. We also highlight conceptual and methodological issues that require careful consideration in translating VBDM to addiction and recovery

Cognitive reactivity: cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of the Persian version of the Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity Revised (LEIDS-R) in an Iranian sample

Cognitive reactivity (CR) to the experimental induction of sad mood has been found to predict relapse in recovered depressed patients. The Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity Revised (LEIDS-R) is a self-report measure of CR. The aim of the present study was to establish the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the LEIDS-R. The participants were recovered depressed and non-depressed Iranian individuals (n = 833). The analyses included content validation, factor analysis, construct validity, and reliability testing. Preliminary construct validation analysis confirmed that factor analysis was appropriate for the Persian version of the LEIDS-R. Factor analysis displayed similar factor loadings to the original English version. The total internal consistency of the translated version, which was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was equal to 0.90. The test-retest reliability of the total score was equal to that of the test-retest conducted after a two-week interval at 0.94. Content validity, face validity, and construct validity, as well as reliability analysis were all found to be satisfactory for the Persian version of the LEIDS-R. The Persian version of the LEIDS-R appears to be valid and reliable for use in future studies, and has properties comparable to the original version and to that obtained in previous studies

Relapse prevention for addictive behaviors

The Relapse Prevention (RP) model has been a mainstay of addictions theory and treatment since its introduction three decades ago. This paper provides an overview and update of RP for addictive behaviors with a focus on developments over the last decade (2000-2010). Major treatment outcome studies and meta-analyses are summarized, as are selected empirical findings relevant to the tenets of the RP model. Notable advances in RP in the last decade include the introduction of a reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of relapse, the application of advanced statistical methods to model relapse in large randomized trials, and the development of mindfulness-based relapse prevention. We also review the emergent literature on genetic correlates of relapse following pharmacological and behavioral treatments. The continued influence of RP is evidenced by its integration in most cognitive-behavioral substance use interventions. However, the tendency to subsume RP within other treatment modalities has posed a barrier to systematic evaluation of the RP model. Overall, RP remains an influential cognitive-behavioral framework that can inform both theoretical and clinical approaches to understanding and facilitating behavior change

Design of a randomized controlled trial for multiple cancer risk behaviors among Spanish-speaking Mexican-origin smokers

Background: Smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity account for as much as 60% of cancer risk. Latinos experience profound disparities in health behaviors, as well as the cancers associated with them. Currently, there is a dearth of controlled trials addressing these health behaviors among Latinos. Further, to the best of our knowledge, no studies address all three behaviors simultaneously, are culturally sensitive, and are guided by formative work with the target population. Latinos represent 14% of the U. S. population and are the fastest growing minority group in the country. Efforts to intervene on these important lifestyle factors among Latinos may accelerate the elimination of cancer-related health disparities

Serious adverse events reported in placebo randomised controlled trials of oral naltrexone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 - 250 mg. The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of naltrexone compared to placebo. Methods A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to March 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled RCTs longer than 4 weeks published after 1/1/2001, of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition and age group were included, excluding only studies for opioid or ex-opioid users, due to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook throughout. Numerical data was independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed using Stata 15 and R, using random and fixed effects models throughout. Results Eighty-nine RCTs with 11194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders, various psychiatric disorders, impulse control disorders, other addictions, obesity, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and cancers. Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded SAEs occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of SAEs for naltrexone compared to placebo, relative risk (RR) 0.84 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (RD = -0.01 (-0.02, 0.00)) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged high using the GRADE criteria. Conclusions Naltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of SAEs over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications