Cited by 99Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDigital Mental Health InterventionsCannabis and Cannabinoid Research

A controlled trial of an Internet-based intervention program for cannabis users

Open access
Tossmann, Dr. Hans-Peter, Jonas, Benjamin, Tensil, Marc-Dennan, Lang, Peter, Strüber, Evelin·2011·Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking

Abstract

In the last decade, several programs for the treatment of cannabis-related disorders were developed. Until now, no information is available on the efficacy of Internet-based counseling approaches for this target group. This article describes the evaluation of "quit the shit," a web-based intervention developed to help young people to quit or reduce their cannabis use significantly. Cannabis users seeking web-based treatment were included in a two-arm controlled trial conducted on a website for drug-related information and prevention. After the baseline assessment, members of the treatment condition were randomized to a 50-day intervention program. Other trial participants were put on a waiting list. A post-test was conducted 3 months after randomization. Of all 1,292 subjects included in the trial, a total of 206 participants took part at the post-test. Per-protocol- and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. Members of the treatment condition showed a significantly stronger reduction in cannabis use (primary outcome) than the control group. In the per-protocol analyses, moderate-to-strong effects were found for the reduction of the frequency and the reduction of the quantity of consumed cannabis. Small-to-moderate effects were observed on the secondary outcomes (use-related self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction). Despite limitations concerning the interpretation of the results, the intervention seems to offer an effective treatment option for persons with cannabis-related problems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cyber.2010.0506

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tossmann, D. H.-P., Jonas, B., Tensil, M.-D., Lang, P., & Strüber, E.
Affiliations
  • Delphi–Gesellschaft für Forschung, Beratung und Projektentwicklung, Berlin, Germany.
  • Aptiv (Germany) (DE)
  • Bundesinstitut für Öffentliche Gesundheit (DE)
Venue
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
Published
2011-06-08
Volume
14
Issue
11
Pages
673-679
ISSN
  • 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2723
OpenAlex
W1975824508
Cited by
99
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
cannabis use reduction, online intervention, cannabis-related disorders, youth, online counseling, treatment efficacy, anxiety, depression, life satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Marijuana Abuse, Counseling, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Statistics, Nonparametric, Internet, Young Adult

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