CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 282Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSmoking Behavior and Cessation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 184 of the 184 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder

Open access
Gates, Peter J, Sabioni, Pamela, Copeland, Jan, Le Foll, Bernard, Gowing, Linda·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4PMC PMC4914383
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is increasing internationally, only a minority of those with the disorder seek professional assistance. Treatment studies have been published, but pressure to establish public policy requires an updated systematic review of cannabis-specific treatments for adults. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (compared with inactive control and/or alternative treatment) delivered to adults in an out-patient or community setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulaive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and reference lists of articles. Searched literature included all articles published before July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies examining a psychosocial intervention for cannabis use disorder (without pharmacological intervention) in comparison with a minimal or inactive treatment control or alternative combinations of psychosocial interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 randomised controlled trials involving 4045 participants. A total of 15 studies took place in the United States, two in Australia, two in Germany and one each in Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and Ireland. Investigators delivered treatments over approximately seven sessions (range, one to 14) for approximately 12 weeks (range, one to 56).Overall, risk of bias across studies was moderate, that is, no trial was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias or reporting bias. Further, trials included a large total number of participants, and each trial ensured the fidelity of treatments provided. In contrast, because of the nature of the interventions provided, participant blinding was not possible, and reports of researcher blinding often were unclear or were not provided. Half of the reviewed studies included collateral verification or urinalysis to confirm self report data, leading to concern about performance and detection bias. Finally, concerns of other bias were based on relatively consistent lack of assessment of non-cannabis substance use or use of additional treatments before or during the trial period.A subset of studies provided sufficient detail for comparison of effects of any intervention versus inactive control on primary outcomes of interest at early follow-up (median, four months). Results showed moderate-quality evidence that approximately seven out of 10 intervention participants completed treatment as intended (effect size (ES) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.78, 11 studies, 1424 participants), and that those receiving psychosocial intervention used cannabis on fewer days compared with those given inactive control (mean difference (MD) 5.67, 95% CI 3.08 to 8.26, six studies, 1144 participants). In addition, low-quality evidence revealed that those receiving intervention were more likely to report point-prevalence abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.83, six studies, 1166 participants) and reported fewer symptoms of dependence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 4.15, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.63, four studies, 889 participants) and cannabis-related problems compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.34, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42, six studies, 2202 participants). Finally, very low-quality evidence indicated that those receiving intervention reported using fewer joints per day compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.55, 95% CI 2.51 to 4.59, eight studies, 1600 participants). Notably, subgroup analyses found that interventions of more than four sessions delivered over longer than one month (high intensity) produced consistently improved outcomes (particularly in terms of cannabis use frequency and severity of dependence) in the short term as compared with low-intensity interventions.The most consistent evidence supports the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and particularly their combination for assisting with reduction of cannabis use frequency at early follow-up (MET: MD 4.45, 95% CI 1.90 to 7.00, four studies, 612 participants; CBT: MD 10.94, 95% CI 7.44 to 14.44, one study, 134 participants; MET + CBT: MD 7.38, 95% CI 3.18 to 11.57, three studies, 398 participants) and severity of dependence (MET: SMD 4.07, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.17, two studies, 316 participants; MET + CBT: SMD 7.89, 95% CI 0.93 to 14.85, three studies, 573 participants), although no particular intervention was consistently effective at nine-month follow-up or later. In addition, data from five out of six studies supported the utility of adding voucher-based incentives for cannabis-negative urines to

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4

Cites

184 of 184 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bonsack, 2008, Practice of a motivational intervention for cannabis users with psychosis, Schweizer Archiv fur Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 159, 378
  2. Peters, 2011, Primary outcomes in two randomized controlled trials of treatments for cannabis use disorders, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118, 408, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.04.021 · DOI
  3. Comely, 2006, Assessment and treatment of cannabis abuse and dependence - a practitioner's perspective, Australian Journal of Psychology, 58, 125
  4. Croquette-Krokar, 2004, Cannabis abuse in adolescents. A comparison of clients attending two specific psychotherapeutic units using a common assessment instrument, European Psychiatry, 19, 160S
  5. Fohlmann, 2008, The CapOpus treatment model - a specialized 6-month treatment program for young outpatients with cannabis abuse and psychosis, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2, A121
  6. Fohlmann, 2010, CapOpus. Randomized clinical trial: specialized addiction treatment (MI & CBT) versus treatment as usual for young patients with cannabis abuse and psychosis, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 4, 160
  7. Hjorthoj, 2008, Preliminary results of the CapOpus trial comparing specialized treatment with treatment as usual for cannabis misuse in people with comorbid psychosis and cannabis misuse, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2, A122
  8. Hjorthoj, 2012, CapOpus - intervention study for cannabis use disorder in psychosis, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 6, 28
  9. Huesler, 2006, A binational (Switzerland, Germany) intervention program for cannabis abusers, Psychology and Health, 21, 68
  10. Liddle, 2002, A randomized controlled trial of intensive outpatient, family-based therapy vs. residential drug treatment for co-morbid adolescent substance abusers, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, S1
  11. Metrik, 2010, Balanced-placebo design successfully adapted for use with marijuana, DATA: The Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 29, 8
  12. Smeerdijk, 2009, Family motivation intervention in early onset psychosis and cannabis abuse: a randomized clinical trial, Schizophrenia Bulletin, 35, 371
  13. Swift, 2001, Adolescent cannabis check-up and intervention trial, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 156
  14. Werder, 2012, Addressing marijuana use as an early intervention in youth with serious mental illness, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 6, 97
  15. Copeland, 2001, Clinical profile of participants in a brief intervention program for cannabis use disorder, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 45, 10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00148-3 · DOI
  16. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2014, European Drug Report 2014: Trends and Developments
  17. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2012, 2012 Annual Report on the State of the Drug Problem in Europe
  18. Miller, 1992, Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual. NIAAA Project MATCH Monograph Series. Publication No. (ADM) 92-1894
  19. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002, Marijuana treatment admission increase: 1993-1999
  20. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013, The TEDS Report: Marijuana Admissions Aged 18 to 30: Early vs. Adult Initiation
  21. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014, Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863
  22. World Health Organization, 1992, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 282

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gates, P. J., Sabioni, P., Copeland, J., Le Foll, B., & Gowing, L.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; University of Toronto; Translational Addiction Research Laboratory; 33 Russell Street Toronto ON Canada
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-05
Issue
5
Pages
CD005336-CD005336
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4
PMC
PMC4914383
OpenAlex
W2414702405
Cited by
282
References
182
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA031906)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
cannabis use disorder, psychosocial interventions, treatment efficacy, outpatient care, community-based treatment, treatment completion, relapse, medication adherence, substance use disorders
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Marijuana Abuse, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Motivational Interviewing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review