- Digital interventions for opioid recovery show good feasibility and acceptance, but efficacy evidence is limited, mixed, and in early stages.
- Commercial apps have outpaced science: only eight received peer-reviewed evaluation and three had healthcare regulatory approval at search time.
- More rigorous research, safety and privacy evaluation, regulatory reform, and inclusion of women, minority groups, and insecurely housed people are urgently needed.
PLOS Digit Health. 2026 Jul 30;5(7):e0001544. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001544. eCollection 2026 Jul.
ABSTRACT
Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a global public health crisis that has steadily worsened despite significant efforts. Maladaptive opioid use can have significant negative impacts, yet a minority receive evidence-based treatments. Leveraging common personal technologies like smartphones and computers may help extend access to such services. The current study aims to describe the landscape of personal technology use in opioid use recovery by combining an academic scoping review with a review of commercially available smartphone apps and devices. The scoping review provides an overview of research examining feasibility and efficacy, whereas the commercial review investigates whether available technology is supported by peer-reviewed research or regulatory approval. Four databases were searched for the scoping review (i.e., PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) alongside Apple and Google Play stores for the commercial review. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies. The academic search yielded 937 articles, of which 34 were included, and the commercial review found 21 apps and devices. The included studies show good acceptance and feasibility; however, research reporting on efficacy outcomes is mixed and nascent. Of the commercially available interventions, only eight underwent peer-reviewed evaluation, and only three had received healthcare body approval at the time of the search. Thus, more research is needed to ascertain the efficacy of such interventions, especially in underrepresented groups such as women, minority groups, and insecurely housed people. Additionally, given the limited data identified and the legal and medical risks associated with OUD, further consideration of safety and privacy is warranted. Further, since commercialization has vastly outpaced peer-reviewed research, we suggest amendments to regulatory procedures that consider the risks associated with the intended population, rather than just the intended use. Lastly, we offer suggestions to guide clinical decision-making regarding the use of digital tools in their practice.
PMID:42531192 | DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001544
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes
Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF
⭐ My Revision List
