Approach With Caution: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Approach Bias Modification for People Undergoing Residential Treatment for Methamphetamine Use Disorder

INTRODUCTION: Less than one-quarter of people who attend residential rehabilitation for methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) remain abstinent for 1 year. Approach bias modification (ApBM), a cognitive training intervention, reduces relapse rates when delivered during residential rehabilitation for alcohol use disorder. However, there has been little research on ApBM for MUD. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with MUD attending four residential treatment services in Melbourne were randomised, between March 2020 and August 2024, to 6 sessions of either ApBM (n = 10) or sham-control training (n = 14). Safety was monitored during the intervention and acceptability was assessed at the end of training. A blinded researcher assessed methamphetamine use, craving, and dependence severity at follow-ups 1 and 3 months after discharge from residential treatment. RESULTS: Three ApBM and five control participants experienced adverse psychological reactions to the training task, resulting in two ApBM and 1 control participants withdrawing. However, participants who completed training generally provided positive acceptability ratings (mean Endorsement and Discomfort Scale scores of 69.13 [SD = 10.93] in the ApBM group and 58.83 [SD = 13.41] in controls). Directions of differences in proportions reporting past-month abstinence at 1-month (ApBM: 5/7 [71%]; controls: 5/11 [46%]) and 3-month follow-ups (ApBM: 4/7 [57%]; controls: 3/9 [33%]) and continuous abstinence at 3-month follow-up (ApBM: 3/7 [43%]; controls: 2/11 [18%]) favoured ApBM; however, these differences did not approach significance in this very small sample. Craving and MUD severity outcomes also did not differ significantly between groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Further research on ApBM's efficacy for MUD may be warranted, but safety concerns suggest caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000072910. Registered on 30 January 2020 (prospectively registered): https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378804&isReview=true.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Drug and Alcohol Review
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.70151
Primary Topic
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Approach With Caution: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Approach Bias Modification for People Undergoing Residential Treatment for Methamphetamine Use Disorder

Hugh Piercy, Danielle Whelan, Eli Kotler, Goke Okedara et al.
Drug and Alcohol Review
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
article

Approach With Caution: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Approach Bias Modification for People Undergoing Residential Treatment for Methamphetamine Use Disorder

Hugh Piercy, Danielle Whelan, Eli Kotler, Goke Okedara, Maggie Maloney, Malcolm Hopwood, Dan I. Lubman, Victoria Manning, Shalini Arunogiri, Joshua B. B. Garfield
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Less than one-quarter of people who attend residential rehabilitation for methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) remain abstinent for 1 year. Approach bias modification (ApBM), a cognitive training intervention, reduces relapse rates when delivered during residential rehabilitation for alcohol use disorder. However, there has been little research on ApBM for MUD. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with MUD attending four residential treatment services in Melbourne were randomised, between March 2020 and August 2024, to 6 sessions of either ApBM (n = 10) or sham-control training (n = 14). Safety was monitored during the intervention and acceptability was assessed at the end of training. A blinded researcher assessed methamphetamine use, craving, and dependence severity at follow-ups 1 and 3 months after discharge from residential treatment. RESULTS: Three ApBM and five control participants experienced adverse psychological reactions to the training task, resulting in two ApBM and 1 control participants withdrawing. However, participants who completed training generally provided positive acceptability ratings (mean Endorsement and Discomfort Scale scores of 69.13 [SD = 10.93] in the ApBM group and 58.83 [SD = 13.41] in controls). Directions of differences in proportions reporting past-month abstinence at 1-month (ApBM: 5/7 [71%]; controls: 5/11 [46%]) and 3-month follow-ups (ApBM: 4/7 [57%]; controls: 3/9 [33%]) and continuous abstinence at 3-month follow-up (ApBM: 3/7 [43%]; controls: 2/11 [18%]) favoured ApBM; however, these differences did not approach significance in this very small sample. Craving and MUD severity outcomes also did not differ significantly between groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Further research on ApBM's efficacy for MUD may be warranted, but safety concerns suggest caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000072910. Registered on 30 January 2020 (prospectively registered): https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378804&isReview=true.

Drug and Alcohol ReviewVol. 45(4)
The University of Melbourne (AU), Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira (IN), Eastern Health (AU), St Vincent’s Private Hospital Sydney (AU), Melbourne Clinic (AU), Melbourne Health (AU), Monash University (AU)
National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.