CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSmoking Behavior and Cessation

A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder

Open access
Copeland, Jan, Swift, Wendy, Roffman, Roger, Stephens, Robert·2001·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
DOI 10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The increasing demand for treatment for cannabis dependence in Australia and internationally has led to the identification of significant gaps in knowledge of effective interventions. A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive-behavioral interventions (CBT) for cannabis dependence was undertaken to address this issue. A total of 229 participants were assessed and randomly assigned to either a six-session CBT program (6CBT), a single-session CBT intervention (1CBT), or a delayed-treatment control (DTC) group. Participants were assisted in acquiring skills to promote cannabis cessation and maintenance of abstinence. Participants were followed-up a median of 237 days after last attendance. Participants in the treatment groups reported better treatment outcomes than the DTC group. They were more likely to report abstinence, were significantly less concerned about their control over cannabis use, and reported significantly fewer cannabis-related problems than those in the DTC group. Those in the 6CBT group also reported more significantly reduced levels of cannabis consumption than the DTC group. While the therapist variable had no effect on any outcome, a secondary analysis of the 6CBT and 1CBT groups showed that treatment compliance was significantly associated with decreased dependence and cannabis-related problems. This study supports the attractiveness and effectiveness of individual CBT interventions for cannabis use disorders and the need for multisite replication trials.

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 · 10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Best-practice evidence suggests that the most effective treatment response for cannabis-dependent users is a brief intervention involving six sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, which is not currently provided in Portugal.

    “Best-practice evidence suggests that the most effective treatment response for cannabis-dependent users is a 'brief intervention' involving six sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, yet this is not currently provided in Portugal (see, e.g.Copeland et al. 2001).”

    From What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs? (2010) · cites this paper as Copeland et al. 2001

    The Discussion reports better outcomes for both one- and six-session CBT than for delayed treatment, and greater reductions in cannabis consumption and dependence with six sessions. It also reports no significant difference between the two interventions on several other outcomes, so the trial does not establish six-session CBT as the most effective treatment overall. The cited passages do not address whether it was provided in Portugal. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Studies that report follow-up data report abstinence rates between 0% and 30% at 3-month follow-up and about half that or less at 9-to 12-month follow-up.

    “Some studies have failed to report follow-up data (Stephens et al., 2002), but those that have report abstinence rates between 0% and 30% at 3-month follow-up (e.g., Budney et al., 2000;Stephens et al., 2000) and about half that or less at 9-to 12-month follow-up (e.g., Budney et al., 2000;Copeland et al., 2001;Stephens et al., 1994Stephens et al., , 2000)).”

    From A preliminary investigation of acceptance and commitment therapy as a treatment for Marijuana dependence in adults (2007) · cites this paper as Copeland et al., 2001

    Section 3.4.2 reports continuous abstinence of 6.5% overall and 15.1% in the six-session CBT group, broadly consistent with the low longer-term rates cited. But Section 2.2 specifies a 24-week follow-up, and Section 3.3 reports an actual median of 237 days after treatment; this paper does not establish those rates specifically at 9–12 months. Copeland et al. is not cited for the sentence’s 3-month figure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Treatment options for marijuana dependence include relapse prevention, motivational enhancement procedures, cognitive behavior therapy and coping skills training, and voucher-based motivational incentives.

    “Treatment options include relapse prevention (Stephens et al., 1994(Stephens et al., , 2000)), motivational enhancement procedures (Budney et al., 2000;Stephens et al., 2002), cognitive behavior therapy and coping skills training (Budney et al.;Copeland et al., 2001;Stephens et al., 2002), and voucher-based motivational incentives (Budney et al.).”

    From A preliminary investigation of acceptance and commitment therapy as a treatment for Marijuana dependence in adults (2007) · cites this paper as Copeland et al., 2001

  • Early randomized studies of brief intervention for adult drug use found statistically significant effects for at least one primary outcome.

    “Early randomized studies of brief intervention for drug use among adults found statistically significant effects for at least one of the primary outcomes (Baker et al., 2005; Bernstein et al., 2005; Copeland et al., 2001; Davis, Baer, Saxon, & Kivlahan, 2003; Humeniuk et al., 2012; McCambridge & Strang, 2004; Stephens, Roffman, & Curtin, 2000; Zahradnik et al., 2009)”

    From A randomized study of the use of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug and alcohol use with jail inmates (2017) · cites this paper as Copeland et al., 2001

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Derogatis, L. R. (1994). The symptom checklist 90-R: administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd edition). Minneapolis, MN: National Computing Systems Inc.
  2. Gossop, M., Griffiths, P., Powis, B., & Strang, J. (1992). Severity of de- pendence and route of administration of heroin, cocaine and amphet- amines. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1527 -1536.
  3. Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Curtin, L. (2000). Extended versus brief treatment for marijuana use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 68 (5), 898 -908.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Copeland, J., Swift, W., Roffman, R., & Stephens, R.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Copeland, Jan
ORCID
Copeland, Jan
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-09
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
55-64
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9
OpenAlex
W2017872800
Cited by
322
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
cannabis use disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, brief intervention, single-session intervention, abstinence maintenance, cannabis cessation, medication adherence, cannabis-related problems, therapist effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Australia, Marijuana Abuse, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Self-Assessment, Time Factors, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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