Cited by 94Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSmoking Behavior and Cessation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Marijuana Check-up: promoting change in ambivalent marijuana users.

Abstract

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of a two-session assessment and feedback intervention designed to reach and increase motivation for change in marijuana users who were experiencing negative consequences but were ambivalent about change. DESIGN: Random assignment to one of two types of feedback conditions or a delayed feedback control (DFC) with follow-up assessments at 7 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. Setting University of Washington research center in Seattle, Washington. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 188 adult male and female marijuana users who responded to advertisements. Interventions A personalized feedback (PF) condition utilizing motivational interviewing was compared to an educational control condition labeled multi-media feedback (MMF). MEASUREMENTS: Marijuana use, dependence symptoms, other associated negative consequences and motivational constructs were assessed at all time-points. FINDINGS: PF participants reported fewer days of use per week, fewer periods of use per day and fewer dependence symptoms at 7 weeks than those in the MMF and DFC conditions. PF participants also reported fewer days of use per week compared to MMF participants at the 12-month follow-up and fewer dependence symptoms at both the 6- and 12-month follow-ups compared to MMF participants. CONCLUSIONS: The PF intervention, delivered in the context of a check-up, shows potential as a way of reaching and motivating change in marijuana users with a diagnosable disorder who otherwise are not ready to approach treatment. Ways of augmenting the modest absolute levels of change are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01821.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.2.307 · DOI · Paper page
  2. First M. B., 1996, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV, Axis I Disorders—Patient Edition (SCID‐I/P)
  3. Bell J., 1997, Quantum—What's Your Poison—Marijuana

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., Fearer, S. A., Williams, C., & Burke, R. S.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Stephens, Robert S.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-05-22
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
947-957
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2043551983
Cited by
94
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA009425, R01 DA09425)
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, cannabis use disorder, ambivalence, motivational interviewing, personalized feedback, motivational readiness, substance use reduction, educational intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Marijuana Abuse, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Motivation, Patient Care Planning, Patient Compliance, Feedback, Psychological

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