Cited by 47Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDigital Mental Health InterventionsCannabis and Cannabinoid Research

The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Olmos, Alexandre, Tirado-Muñoz, Judit, Farré, Magí, Torrens, Marta·2018·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Background and aims Cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit drug. Although it is too early to confirm the impact of legalization, the use of cannabis appears to be on the rise in some countries due to its authorization for medical/recreational purposes. Among different types of therapeutic approaches to reduce cannabis use, computerized interventions are becoming a new treatment option. To assess their efficacy, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed employing randomized controlled clinical trials indexed in MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The principal outcome measure was cannabis use, and the secondary one was the use of other substances during interventions. A subgroup analysis was conducted by length of follow-up, number of sessions, age group, type of analysis, and type of control condition.Results The meta-analysis included nine studies with 2963 participants. Computerized interventions resulted in significant reductions in the use of cannabis (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.26, -0.11) and other substances (SMD: -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.08).Conclusions Computerized interventions examined in the present study reduced the frequency of cannabis and other substance use. Limitations included the recalculation of dichotomous and continuous data as SMD and the lower number of studies included in the secondary outcome. Computerized interventions could be a viable option to reduce cannabis use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.045

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olmos, A., Tirado-Muñoz, J., Farré, M., & Torrens, M.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Hospital Del Mar (ES)
Corresponding author
Torrens, Marta
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
79
Pages
52-60
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2774781750
Cited by
47
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII-FEDER PI14/00715)
  • Red de Trastornos Adictivos (RD12/0028/0009, RD16/0017/0010, RD16/0017/0003)
  • Ministerio de Sanidad-Plan Nacional sobre Drogas (PNSD 2015I054)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Keywords
computer-based intervention, cannabis use reduction, substance use, cannabis legalization, recreational cannabis, medical cannabis, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Marijuana Use, Humans, Person-Centered Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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