Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
Narrative reviews conclude that behavioral therapies (BTs) produce better outcomes than control conditions for cannabis use disorders (CUDs). However, the strength and consistency of this effect has not been directly empirically examined. The present meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of behavioral interventions in the treatment of CUDs. A comprehensive literature search produced 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 2,027) that were included in the final analyses. Analyses indicated an effect of BTs (including contingency management, relapse prevention, and motivational interviewing, and combinations of these strategies with cognitive behavioral therapy) over control conditions (including waitlist [WL], psychological placebo, and treatment as usual) across pooled outcomes and time points (Hedges’ g = 0.44). These results suggest that the average patient receiving a behavioral intervention fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions. BT also outperformed control conditions when examining primary outcomes alone (frequency and severity of use) and secondary outcomes alone (psychosocial functioning). Effect sizes were not moderated by inclusion of a diagnosis (RCTs including treatment-seeking cannabis users who were not assessed for abuse or dependence vs. RCTs including individuals diagnosed as dependent), dose (number of treatment sessions), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in-person vs. non-in-person treatment), sample size, or publication year. Effect sizes were significantly larger for studies that included a WL control comparison versus those including active control comparisons, such that BT significantly outperformed WL controls but not active control comparisons.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (n = 2,027) found that behavioral therapies for treatment-seeking cannabis users outperformed control conditions across pooled outcomes and time points. Effects were medium overall, but behavioral therapies significantly outperformed waitlist controls and not active controls.
Key findings
- Across all outcomes and time points, behavioral therapies outperformed controls with Hedges’ g = 0.44 (SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.26, 0.62], p < .001); the average patient receiving behavioral therapy fared better than 66% of controls.
- Behavioral therapies also outperformed controls on primary outcomes (frequency and severity of use; g = 0.49, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.26, 0.71], p < .001; better than approximately 69% of controls) and secondary outcomes (psychosocial functioning; g = 0.42, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.19, 0.65], p < .001; better than 66% of controls).
- Effect sizes were not significantly moderated by dose (β = .02, p = .43), publication year (β = .01, p = .73), sample size (β = .00, p = .70), diagnosis inclusion (p = .29), in-person versus non-in-person treatment (p = .80), or group versus individual in-person treatment (p = .78).
- Behavioral therapies significantly outperformed waitlist controls (g = 0.56, SE = 0.09, p < .001) but not active controls (g = 0.14, SE = 0.12, p = .25). Publication-bias analysis indicated more than 101 unpublished null studies would be needed to reduce the overall effect to nonsignificance, exceeding the suggested threshold of 60.
Methods
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified through Scopus, Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Dissertation Abstracts International, searched from first available date until March 15, 2013, using terms random* and cannabis or marijuana; 763 potential articles were identified and 10 RCTs (n = 2,027) were included.
- Inclusion criteria required at least one behavioral component (e.g., contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, or combinations with cognitive behavioral therapy), random assignment, an active or inactive control group (waitlist, psychological placebo, or treatment as usual), and a treatment-seeking sample.
- Between-group effect sizes were computed with Hedges’ g using random-effects analyses; heterogeneity was assessed with Q and I², moderators were examined with unrestricted maximum likelihood meta-regressions, and publication bias was assessed with fail-safe N.
Limitations
- The paper states that most RCTs compared two behavioral therapies without a control group and were excluded; only 10 trials with controls were available, which may have limited power to detect moderators.
- The paper states it did not compare different forms of behavioral treatment because versions were not uniform across studies; two included studies used web-based or telephone-based rather than in-person treatment.
- The paper states that some RCTs did not assess abuse/dependence and included cannabis “users,” while others included only dependent participants; it also notes that active-control comparisons were limited to three studies and should be interpreted cautiously.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Effect sizes did not differ significantly between studies that did not assess for abuse or dependence as an inclusion criterion and studies that only enrolled participants diagnosed as dependent.
“In addition, there was not a significant difference in effect sizes between studies that did not assess for abuse or dependence as an inclusion criteria versus studies that only enrolled participants diagnosed as dependent (p = .29) or studies using in-person versus non-in-person treatments (p = .80).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Effect sizes were not significantly moderated by dose (number of treatment sessions).
“Contrary to prediction, a meta-regression analysis showed there was not a significant relationship between dose (number of treatment sessions) and effect sizes (β = .02, p = .43).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Effect sizes were not significantly moderated by publication year.
“There was also not a significant relationship between publication year and effect size (β = .01, p = .73) or between sample size and effect size (β = .00, p = .70).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
BT significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (psychosocial functioning), with a mean overall effect size of Hedges' g = 0.42 (SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.19, 0.65], p < .001).
“Consistent with our prediction, BT also significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (measures of psychosocial functioning). Using a Hedges’ g random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.42 (SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.65], p < .001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
- Findingown data
Effect sizes were not significantly moderated by sample size.
“There was also not a significant relationship between publication year and effect size (β = .01, p = .73) or between sample size and effect size (β = .00, p = .70).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
BT did not significantly outperform active control comparisons, with Hedges' g = 0.14 (SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.39, 1.16], p = .25).
“(Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
- Findingown data
There was no significant relationship between effect sizes and sample (users vs. dependent).
“Fourth, there was not a significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year, sample (users vs. dependent), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in person vs. Internet or telephone based), or sample size.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The most common treatment condition component was motivational enhancement (ME), used in nine studies.
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Effect sizes did not differ significantly between in-person and non-in-person treatments.
“In addition, there was not a significant difference in effect sizes between studies that did not assess for abuse or dependence as an inclusion criteria versus studies that only enrolled participants diagnosed as dependent (p = .29) or studies using in-person versus non-in-person treatments (p = .80).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
BT outperformed control conditions on primary outcomes (Hedges' g = .49).
“Second, consistent with prediction, BT outperformed control conditions on primary outcomes (Hedges’ g = .49)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
BT outperformed control conditions when all outcome and time variables were combined (Hedges' g = 0.44).
“First, consistent with prediction, BT outperformed control conditions when all outcome and time variables were combined (Hedges’ g = 0.44), indicating an effect for BT relative to control conditions overall.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
BT significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (Hedges' g = 0.42).
“Third, consistent with prediction, BT significantly outperformed control conditions on secondary measures (Hedges’ g = 0.42)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year.
“Fourth, there was not a significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year, sample (users vs. dependent), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in person vs. Internet or telephone based), or sample size.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Effect sizes did not differ significantly between group and individual treatment formats in the in-person treatments.
“There were also no significant differences between group and individual treatment formats in the in-person treatments (p = .78).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
There was no significant relationship between effect sizes and treatment format (group vs. individual or in person vs. Internet/telephone based).
“Fourth, there was not a significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year, sample (users vs. dependent), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in person vs. Internet or telephone based), or sample size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
It would require more than 101 current or future unpublished studies with an effect size of 0 to bring the overall effect size of the primary analyses within the nonsignificant range.
“Analyses revealed that it would require more than 101 current or future unpublished studies with an effect size of 0 to bring the overall effect size of the primary analyses within the nonsignificant range”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
- Findingown data
There was no significant relationship between effect sizes and sample size.
“Fourth, there was not a significant relationship between effect sizes and publication year, sample (users vs. dependent), treatment format (either group vs. individual treatment or in person vs. Internet or telephone based), or sample size.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled BT trials (n = 2,027) largely supported the study hypotheses.
“The meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled BT trials (n = 2,027) largely supported the study hypotheses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
BT did not outperform active control treatments.
“However, it should also be noted that BT outperformed WL control treatments, but not active control treatments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was a significant difference in effect sizes between studies with active control comparisons and those with WL controls, such that effect sizes of BT were larger for studies with WL control comparisons.
“Additionally, there was a significant difference in effect sizes between those studies with active control comparisons and those studies with WL controls, such that effect sizes of BT were larger for studies with WL control comparisons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no dose-response relationship.
“Contrary to our prediction, there was not a dose–response relationship.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
BT outperformed WL control treatments.
“However, it should also be noted that BT outperformed WL control treatments, but not active control treatments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The average patient receiving BT fared better than approximately 69% of those in the control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.
“This suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than approximately 69% of those in the control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on measures of psychosocial functioning.
“This suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on measures of psychosocial functioning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The average patient receiving a behavioral intervention fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions across all pooled outcomes.
“These results suggest that the average patient receiving a behavioral intervention fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
“This finding suggests that the average patient receiving BT treatment fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
- Interpretationreasoning
The average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on psychosocial measures.
“suggesting that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions on psychosocial measures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions overall.
“This suggests that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 66% of those in the control conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In the previous meta-analysis (Dutra et al., 2008), abstinence rates ranged only between 10% and 37%.
“In our previous meta-analysis (Dutra et al., 2008), abstinence rates ranged only between 10% and 37%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Specialized, potent therapeutic ingredients may be required to reduce relapse in cannabis users.
“suggesting that specialized, potent therapeutic ingredients may be required to reduce relapse in this population.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
More cost-effective treatment dissemination strategies (e.g., group treatment or web/telephone-based delivery) have the potential to be as efficacious for this population as individual, in-person treatment strategies.
“the lack of differences seen among different treatment formats suggest that more cost-effective treatment dissemination strategies (e.g., group treatment or web/telephone-based delivery) have the potential to be as efficacious for this population as individual, in-person treatment strategies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Current BTs are superior to control conditions (TAU, PsychPL, and WL).
“The results are promising, suggesting that current BTs are superior to control conditions (TAU, PsychPL, and WL).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Of those who achieve abstinence during the first 2 weeks, about 1/2 relapse within 1 year.
“of those who achieve abstinence during this time, about 1/2 relapse within 1 year (Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007; Dutra et al., 2008).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Abstinence rates from cannabis use treatment are still quite low.
“abstinence rates from use are still quite low.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- cites McRae, Budney, and Brady, 2003
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductreasoning
The moderator analyses may have been underpowered, given the relatively small number of studies with each moderator.
“It should be noted, however, that these moderator analyses may have been underpowered, given the relatively small number of studies with each moderator.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The aggregated effect reported in the previous Dutra et al. study is not indicative of the aggregate effect of treatment for cannabis use disorders alone.
“First, the aggregated effect reported in the Dutra’s study is not indicative of the aggregate effect of treatment for CUDs alone.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Cannabis users report that withdrawal symptoms are the primary reason for relapse.
“Cannabis users report that withdrawal symptoms are the primary reason for relapse (Bonn-Miller & Moos, 2009; Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Thostenson, & Bursac, 2008; Cornelius, Chung, Martin, Clark, & Wood, 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Bonn-Miller & Moos, 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Thostenson, & Bursac, 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Cornelius, Chung, Martin, Clark, & Wood, 2007
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The most effective treatment to date for cannabis dependence (BT) yields only a 50% abstinence rate during the first 2-weeks of intervention.
“the most effective treatment to date for cannabis dependence (BT) yields only a 50% abstinence rate during the first 2-weeks of intervention (Budney, Moore, Rocha, & Higgins, 2006; Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007; Kadden et al., 2007).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Budney, Moore, Rocha, & Higgins, 2006
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Budney, Roffman, et al., 2007
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Kadden et al., 2007
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
The findings in this meta-analysis are robust to publication bias.
“suggesting that the findings in this meta-analysis are robust.”
- Also stated in: § Major Findings · plain
“Finally, publication bias analyses revealed that the findings in this meta-analysis are robust.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
- Also stated in: § Major Findings · plain
- Interpretationreasoning
The average patient receiving BT fared better than 69% of those in control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.
“suggesting that the average patient receiving BT fared better than 69% of those in control conditions on frequency and severity of use measures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
BT for cannabis use may not be robust against more active control treatments.
“this indicates that BT for cannabis use may not be robust against more active control treatments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
A priori research points to the endocannabinoid system as one augmentative potential treatment target.
“A priori research points to the endocannabinoid system (Clapper, Mangieri, & Piomelli, 2009) as one augmentative potential treatment target.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Clapper, Mangieri, & Piomelli, 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
By not including randomized controlled trials conducted among adolescents, previous results may not be truly representative of individuals with cannabis use disorder or problematic, high-frequency use.
“Additionally, by not including RCTs conducted among adolescents, these results may not be truly representative of individuals with CUD or problematic, high frequency use.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In a previous meta-analysis of adult substance use disorders, the aggregated treatment effect suggested that the average individual undergoing any active behavioral treatment for any substance use disorder should fare significantly better than 67% of individuals in control conditions.
“The aggregated treatment effect suggested that across outcomes, the average individual undergoing any active behavioral treatment for any SUD should fare significantly better than 67% of individuals in control conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
The number of studies with active control treatments available for inclusion in the analysis was limited (three studies).
“Though the number of studies with active control treatments available for inclusion in the analysis was limited (i.e., three studies) and should thus be interpreted cautiously”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductnone given
All individuals in all included RCTs were seeking treatment for their cannabis use.
“all individuals in all included RCTs were seeking treatment for their cannabis use”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
There were only 10 trials that included control groups.
“there were still only 10 trials currently that included such controls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use.
“it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Clapper et al., 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Gobbi et al., 2005
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The fact that all included individuals were seeking treatment suggests problematic usage.
“suggesting problematic usage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Reducing relapse rates, thereby increasing the effectiveness of CUD treatments, may require pharmacological or psychological augmentative treatment strategies that can attenuate endocannabinoid withdrawal.
“Therefore, reducing relapse rates, thereby increasing the effectiveness of CUD treatments by and large, may require pharmacological or psychological augmentative treatment strategies that can attenuate endocannabinoid withdrawal.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The limited number of studies may have affected the power to detect moderators.
“This limited number of studies may have also affected the power to detect moderators.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
Two of the included studies used web-based or telephone-based interventions rather than in-person treatment.
“Further, two of the studies did not utilize in-person treatment conditions and instead used web-based (Rooke et al., 2013) or telephone-based interventions (Gates et al., 2012).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Rooke et al., 2013
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Gates et al., 2012
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 13
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataBT outperformed control conditions on primary outcomes (frequency and severity of use), with a mean overall effect size of Hedges' g = 0.49 (SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.26, 0.71], p < .001).
“Consistent with prediction, BT also outperformed control conditions across pooled primary measures (frequency and severity of use). Using a random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.49 (SE = 0.11, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.71]), indicating an effect for BT relative to control conditions (p < .001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataBehavioral therapies (BTs) outperformed control conditions across all pooled outcomes and time points combined, with a mean overall effect size of Hedges' g = 0.44 (SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.26, 0.62], p < .001).
“Analyses indicated an effect of BTs (including contingency management, relapse prevention, and motivational interviewing, and combinations of these strategies with cognitive behavioral therapy) over control conditions (including waitlist [WL], psychological placebo, and treatment as usual) across pooled outcomes and time points (Hedges’ g = 0.44).”
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
“Using a random effects analysis, we obtained a mean overall effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.44 (standard error [SE] = 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.26, 0.62]), indicating a medium effect for BT relative to control conditions overall (p < .001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
- Also stated in: § Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis · hedged
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataAcross the included studies, the most common control condition was waitlist, accounting for seven studies.
“Across studies, the most common control condition was WL accounting for seven studies”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThree included studies had a relapse prevention (RP) condition and two included studies had contingency management (CM) conditions.
“Three studies included a condition with RP (Copeland et al., 2001; Stephens et al., 2000; Stephens et al., 1994) and two studies included conditions with CM (Carroll et al., 2006; Kadden et al., 2007).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThere was a significant difference between active control groups and waitlist control groups, such that effect sizes were larger for BT versus waitlist comparisons than for BT versus active control comparisons.
“Finally, there was a significant difference between active control groups and WL control group, such that BTs evidenced larger effect sizes than active control groups when compared to WL control groups”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataBT significantly outperformed waitlist controls, with Hedges' g = 0.56 (SE = 0.09, 95% CI [0.73, 6.48], p < .001).
“(Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: [0.73, 6.48], p < .001)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe primary overall heterogeneity analysis suggested that 46% of the variance in effect sizes was due to true between-study differences (Q(9) = 16.44, p = .06), though this effect was not significant.
“The primary overall heterogeneity analysis (I2) suggested that 46% of the variance in effect sizes was due to true between-study differences (Q(9) = 16.44, p = .06), though this effect was not significant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenThere are now 10 randomized controlled trials available compared to only 5 in the previous analysis.
“Second, there are now 10 RCTs available compared to only 5 in the previous analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA recent meta-analysis found that psychosocial substance use interventions effectively reduce cannabis use frequency in adolescents.
“For example, one recent meta-analysis examining interventions for adolescent cannabis use found psychosocial substance use interventions to effectively reduce cannabis use frequency (Bender, Tripodi, Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2011).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bender, Tripodi, Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2011
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningImproving treatment effectiveness for CUDs may require developing augmentative treatments directly targeting the biobehavioral mechanisms underlying cannabis use maintenance and relapse.
“Thus, improving treatment effectiveness for CUDs may require developing augmentative treatments directly targeting the biobehavioral mechanisms underlying cannabis use maintenance and relapse.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The vast majority of persons with any substance use disorder do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationCannabis use among adolescence is particularly problematic, given research indicating potential links between cannabis use in adolescence and increased risk for mental health problems later in life.
“Indeed, cannabis use among adolescence is particularly problematic, given research indicating potential links between cannabis use in adolescence and increased risk for mental health problems later in life (Large, Sharma, Compton, Slade, & Nielssen, 2011).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Large, Sharma, Compton, Slade, & Nielssen, 2011
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningStudies utilizing some form of treatment are likely to be more effective than WL due to treatment expectancies and therapist contact.
“This finding is unsurprising, as studies utilizing some form of treatment are likely to be more effective than WL due to treatment expectancies and therapist contact.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationCannabis use disorders respond to the same types of behavioral interventions as other substance use disorders.
“over and above these results suggesting that CUDs respond to the same types of behavioral interventions as other SUDs (Dutra et al., 2008; McRae et al., 2003)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
- cites McRae et al., 2003
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationFindings may be considered robust if the required number of studies to reduce the overall effect size to a nonsignificant level exceeds 5K + 10.
“Rosenthal (1991) suggested that findings may be considered robust if the required number of studies (X) to reduce the overall effect size to a nonsignificant level exceeded 5K + 10 which in this study would be 60.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosenthal, 1991
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMany patients do not show a positive treatment response, indicating that cannabis dependence is not easily treated.
“studies suggest that many patients do not show a positive treatment response, indicating that cannabis dependence is not easily treated”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites McRae, Budney, and Brady, 2003
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn that previous meta-analysis, the greatest effects were found for cannabis use disorders compared to disorders of other illicit drugs, and the overall average pre- to posttreatment effect size for the five cannabis use disorder randomized controlled trials was Cohen's d = 0.81.
“Specifically, the overall average pre- to posttreatment effect size calculation for the five CUD randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded a Cohen’s d of 0.81 (Dutra et al., 2008).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dutra et al., 2008
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAny meta-analysis of published studies may be missing nonsignificant studies and therefore overestimate the overall effect size.
“Therefore, any meta-analysis of published studies may be missing nonsignificant studies and therefore overestimate the overall effect size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Bakan, 1967
Not checked in the free run.
- cites McNemar, 1960
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Smart, 1964
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenSome included RCTs did not assess for substance abuse/dependence and included cannabis users, while others included only dependent participants.
“Finally, some of the RCTs included in the analysis did not assess for substance abuse/dependence and included cannabis “Users,” while others included only those participants diagnosed as dependent.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe current study did not compare different forms of behavioral treatments because each version of behavioral treatment is not uniform across studies.
“Second, the current study did not compare different forms of behavioral treatments (e.g., relapse prevention, motivational enhancement, contingency management, and combinations of these treatments with CBT), as across studies, each version of behavioral treatment is not uniform.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningMost RCTs in the review compared two BTs without including a control group (WL, PsychPL, or TAU) and were excluded.
“First, most RCTs in our review of the literature compared two BTs without including a control group (WL, PsychPL, or TAU); these studies were not included due to our interest in isolating the effects of BTs by comparing to control groups without BT components.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningIncreasing endocannabinoid levels during cannabis cessation attempts (i.e., during active BT) may improve outcomes by reducing withdrawal symptoms.
“Accordingly, increasing endocannabinoid levels during cannabis cessation attempts (i.e., during active BT) may improve outcomes by reducing withdrawal symptoms (Clapper et al., 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Clapper et al., 2009
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningThere is a need for the development and evaluation of augmentative intervention strategies relevant to this population.
“which indicates a need for the development and evaluation of augmentative intervention strategies relevant to this population.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The studies included in the random effects analysis are only a sample of the entire population of studies.
“Effect sizes were calculated with random effects analyses, which estimate the overall effect size assuming the studies included are only a sample of the entire population of studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The control conditions classified as treatment as usual or author-developed controls did not include the active components of behavioral therapy.
“We chose to only include studies with a control condition (i.e., any conditions that did not appear to include the active components of BT) in order to compare controlled effect sizes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0.
“A conservative method of addressing this problem is to assume that the effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0”
The paper relies on this without support.
The vast majority of persons with any substance use disorder do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.
“Indeed, the vast majority of persons with any SUD do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentQ(9) = 16.44reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .058
“Q(9) = 16.44, p = .06”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Active-control confidence interval contradicts its effect estimate and p-value
MajorThe reported effect size of 0.14 falls below the stated 95% confidence interval's lower bound of 0.39. That entirely positive interval also conflicts with the reported nonsignificant p-value of .25.
“Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12”
“95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25”
Waitlist effect estimate falls outside its reported confidence interval
MinorThe reported effect size of 0.56 is below the stated 95% confidence interval's lower bound of 0.73.
“Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09”
“95% CI: [0.73, 6.48]”
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,588 · see citing works
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the variability or proportion of variance accounted for by true differences between studies was then estimated with the I2 index and interpreted with the conventions of small (25%), medium (50%), and large (75%; Higgins & Thompson, 2002; Huedo-Medina, Sanchez-Meca, Marin-Martinez, & Botella, 2006).”
MethodHierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods
Davidian, M. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s288 · Cited by 13,820 · see citing works
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635 · see citing works
The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index.
Mclellan, A., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I. E., Grissom, G. R., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s · Cited by 4,279 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Psychosocial functioning was most frequently assessed using the Addiction Severity Index (McLellan et al., 1992).”
MethodAssessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256 · see citing works
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Fildes, R. A. (1989) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(89)90106-4 · Cited by 3,956 · see citing works
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026 · see citing works
Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5931 · Cited by 2,561 · see citing works
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163 · see citing works
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
(2010) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/(issn)1530-0277 · Cited by 1,830 · see citing works
Anthony, J. C., Warner, L. A., & Kessler, R. C. (1994) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/1064-1297.2.3.244 · Cited by 1,341 · see citing works
A Meta-Analytic Review of Psychosocial Interventions for Substance Use Disorders
Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S. L., Leyro, T. M., Powers, M. B., & Otto, M. W. (2008) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06111851 · Cited by 1,287 · cited 7× · see citing works
“We previously examined the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in a meta-analysis for adult SUDs (Dutra et al., 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationResults From the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings
(2009) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e592592009-001 · Cited by 1,178 · see citing works
Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use
Hall, W., & Degenhardt, L. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61037-0 · Cited by 1,134 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…are projected to become future daily users (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1995), which is problematic considering the numerous health and psychosocial consequences associated with frequent (e.g., daily or weekly) cannabis use (Degenhardt, Hall, & Lynskey, 2001a, 2001b; Hall & Degenhardt, 2009).”
BackgroundThe Handbook of Research Synthesis
Hanka, R. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6952.488a · Cited by 1,064 · see citing works
A meta-analytic review of prolonged exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder
Powers, M. B., Halpern, J. M., Ferenschak, M. P., Gillihan, S. J., & Foa, E. B. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.007 · Cited by 1,005 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985) · Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-057065-5.50010-5 · Cited by 983 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Using weights, the adjusted Hedges’ g corrects for small sample sizes (Deeks, Altman, & Bradburn, 2001; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1994).”
MethodSterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several authors suggest there may be a potential discrepancy between the number of published trials and the total number that are completed (Bakan, 1967; McNemar, 1960; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundComparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Curtin, L. (2000) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.5.898 · Cited by 711 · cited 4× · see citing works
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGobbi, G., Bambico, F. R., Mangieri, R. A., Bortolato, M., Campolongo, P., Solinas, M., Cassano, T., Morgese, M. G., Debonnel, G., Duranti, A., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0509591102 · Cited by 676 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundAcceptance and commitment therapy: A meta-analytic review
Powers, M. B., Zum Vörde Sive Vörding, M. B., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2009) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000190790 · Cited by 619 · see citing works
Self-citationCannabis Use and Earlier Onset of Psychosis
Large, M. M. B., Sharma, S. K., Compton, M. T., Slade, T. N., & Nielssen, O. B. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.5 · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002
Compton, W. M., Grant, B. F., Colliver, J. D., Glantz, M. D., & Stinson, F. S. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.17.2114 · Cited by 537 · see citing works
Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: A meta-analysis
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Horowitz, J. D., Powers, M. B., & Telch, M. J. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.007 · Cited by 530 · see citing works
Self-citationDietrich, A., & McDaniel, W. F. (2004) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.011718 · Cited by 410 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Potentially effective strategies to accomplish this safely are currently being investigated, such as moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (Dietrich & McDaniel, 2004; Sparling, Giuffrida, Piomelli, Rosskopf, & Dietrich, 2003) and lowdose tetrahydrocannabinol (Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Moore, &…”
BackgroundBortolato, M., Mangieri, R. A., Fu, J., Kim, J. H., Arguello, O., Duranti, A., Tontini, A., Mor, M., Tarzia, G., & Piomelli, D. (2007) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.12.001 · Cited by 347 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundDegenhardt, L. J., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. T. (2001) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961116037.x · Cited by 330 · see citing works
A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder
Copeland, J., Swift, W., Roffman, R., & Stephens, R. (2001) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9 · Cited by 322 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodResultExercise activates the endocannabinoid system
Sparling, P. B., Giuffrida, A., Piomelli, D., Rosskopf, L., & Dietrich, A. (2003) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-200312020-00015 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Brief treatments for cannabis dependence: Findings from a randomized multisite trial
Babor, T. F., & The Marijuana Treatment Project Research Group (2004) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.3.455 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis
Powers, M. B., Vedel, E., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.002 · Cited by 300 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is consistent with methodology used in previous meta-analyses examining substance use (Dutra et al., 2008; Powers et al., 2008).”
ResultSelf-citationBudney, A. J., Moore, B. A., Rocha, H. L., & Higgins, S. T. (2006) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.4.2.307 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Marijuana Dependence and Its Treatment
Budney, A. J., Roffman, R. A., Stephens, R., & Walker, D. D. (2007) · Addiction Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1151/ascp07414 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
Treating adult marijuana dependence: A test of the relapse prevention model.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Simpson, E. E. (1994) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.62.1.92 · Cited by 270 · cited 17× · see citing works
“Hoch et al. (2012) randomized 122 adolescents and adults (aged 16–44) with cannabis dependence to (a) 10 sessions of CBT þME þ TAU or (b) WL control (Hoch et al., 2012).”
MethodResultInfluentialMarijuana Withdrawal in Humans: Effects of Oral THC or Divalproex
Haney, M., Hart, C. L., Vosburg, S. K., Nasser, J. A., Bennett, A., Zúbaran, C., & Foltin, R. W. (2003) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300310 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
DEVELOPING A PROTOTYPE FOR EVALUATING ALCOHOL TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
Sobell, M. B., COOPER, A. M., Maisto, S. A., Cooper, T., Sobell, L. C., & Sanders, B. (1980) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-022997-3.50013-2 · Cited by 244 · cited 1× · see citing works
“RCTs utilized a variety of measures to assess for frequency and severity of use, including number of days used in the past 30 days or number of joints assessed by a Timeline Follow-Back measurement (Sobell et al., 1980).”
MethodAnxiolytic-Like Properties of the Anandamide Transport Inhibitor AM404
Bortolato, M., Campolongo, P., Mangieri, R. A., Scattoni, M. L., Frau, R., Trezza, V., Rana, G. L., Russo, R., Calignano, A., Gessa, G. L., et al. (2006) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301061 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Treating adult marijuana dependence: A test of the relapse prevention model.
Stephens, R. S., Roffman, R. A., & Simpson, E. E. (1994) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.62.1.92 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Carroll, K. M., Easton, C. J., Nich, C., Hunkele, K. A., Neavins, T. M., Sinha, R., Ford, H. L., Vitolo, S. A., Doebrick, C. A., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.5.955 · Cited by 214 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Additionally, the Carroll et al. (2006) study comparison group, though labeled as ‘‘individual drug counseling,’’ was described as ‘‘a standardized version of the counseling that is typically offered in community-based clinics.’’”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBonn‐Miller, M. O., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2006) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.03.018 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Self-citationComparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse
Budney, A. J., Vandrey, R. G., Hughes, J. R., Thostenson, J. D., & Bursac, Z. (2008) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2008.01.002 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
A Meta–Analytic Review of Psychological Treatments for Social Anxiety Disorder
Powers, M. B., Sigmarsson, S. R., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2008) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1521/ijct.2008.1.2.94 · Cited by 191 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is consistent with methodology used in previous meta-analyses examining substance use (Dutra et al., 2008; Powers et al., 2008).”
ResultSelf-citationOral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms
Budney, A. J., Vandrey, R. G., Hughes, J. R., Moore, B. A., & Bahrenburg, B. (2007) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.04.014 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Abstinence rates following behavioral treatments for marijuana dependence
Kadden, R. M., Litt, M. D., Kabela-Cormier, E., & Petry, N. M. (2007) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.08.009 · Cited by 173 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Kadden, Litt, Kabela-Cormier, and Petry (2007) randomized 240 cannabis dependent adults to 9 weekly sessions of (a) CBT þ ME þ CM, (b) CBT þME, (c) CM, or (d) a supportive PsychPL condition (Kadden et al., 2007).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe importance of negative results in psychological research.
Smart, R. (1964) · The Canadian Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0083036 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use
Johnson, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2003) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e400412005-001 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Degenhardt, L. J., Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. T. (2001) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s001270170052 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Effectiveness of a self-guided web-based cannabis treatment program: randomized controlled trial
Rooke, S., Copeland, J., Norberg, M., Hine, D., & McCambridge, J. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2256 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
The adolescent cannabis check-up: Randomized trial of a brief intervention for young cannabis users
Martin, G., & Copeland, J. (2007) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.07.004 · Cited by 132 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies (Carroll et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2001; Gates et al., 2012; Hoch et al., 2012; Kadden et al., 2007; Martin & Copeland, 2008; Rooke et al., 2013; Stephens et al., 2000; The MTPRG, 2004).”
MethodAt random: Sense and nonsense.
McNemar, Q. (1960) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0049193 · Cited by 127 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several authors suggest there may be a potential discrepancy between the number of published trials and the total number that are completed (Bakan, 1967; McNemar, 1960; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundTreatment of Cannabis Use Disorders: A Review of the Literature
Nordstrom, B. R., & LEVIN, F. R. (2007) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1080/10550490701525665 · Cited by 120 · cited 2× · see citing works
“For example, individuals attempting to quit cannabis experience marked difficulty in remaining abstinent whether they make a quit attempt on their own or seek professional treatment (Budney, Roffman, Stephens, & Walker, 2007; McRae, Budney, & Brady, 2003; Nordstrom & Levin, 2007).”
BackgroundTreatment of marijuana dependence: a review of the literature.
McRae, A. L., Budney, A. J., & Brady, K. T. (2003) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(03)00041-2 · Cited by 115 · cited 6× · see citing works
“, cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]) produce better outcomes than control conditions (McRae et al., 2003; Nordstrom & Levin, 2007; Zimmermann Mühlig, Sonntag, Bühringer, & Wittchen, 2004).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialQuitting Among Non‐Treatment‐Seeking Marijuana Users: Reasons and Changes in Other Substance Use
Copersino, M. L., Boyd, S. J., Tashkin, D. P., Huestis, M. A., Heishman, S. J., Dermand, J. C., Simmons, M. S., & Gorelick, D. A. (2006) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1080/10550490600754341 · Cited by 108 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, several studies document high failure rates among self-quitters, as indexed by numerous unsuccessful quit attempts (Copersino et al., 2006; Weiner, Sussman, McCuller, & Lichtman, 1999).”
BackgroundJohnson, K., Mullin, J. L., Marshall, E. C., Bonn‐Miller, M. O., & Zvolensky, M. (2010) · The American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2010.00041.x · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Self-citationRandomized controlled trial of a novel cannabis use intervention delivered by telephone
Gates, P., Norberg, M. M., Copeland, J., & Digiusto, E. (2012) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03953.x · Cited by 94 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Further, two of the studies did not utilize in-person treatment conditions and instead used web-based (Rooke et al., 2013) or telephone-based interventions (Gates et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodComment: Assumptions and Procedures in the File Drawer Problem
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. (1988) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177013014 · Cited by 93 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A conservative method of addressing this problem is to assume that the effect sizes of all current or future unpublished studies are equal to 0 and compute the number of such studies it would require to reduce the overall effect size to a nonsignificant level (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1988).”
The endocannabinoid system as a target for the treatment of cannabis dependence
Clapper, J. R., Mangieri, R. A., & Piomelli, D. (2008) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.07.018 · Cited by 92 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Importantly, it appears that these withdrawal symptoms are strongly related to the downregulation of brain endocannabinoids resulting from frequent cannabis use (Bortolato et al., 2006, 2007; Clapper et al., 2009; Gobbi et al., 2005).”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Adolescent Cannabis Use
Bender, K., Tripodi, S. J., Sarteschi, C., & Vaughn, M. G. (2010) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731510380226 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Predictors of marijuana treatment outcomes: The role of self-efficacy
Stephens, R. S., Wertz, J. S., & Roffman, R. A. (1993) · Journal of Substance Abuse · doi:10.1016/0899-3289(93)90003-t · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Efficacy of a targeted cognitive–behavioral treatment program for cannabis use disorders (CANDIS*)
Hoch, E., Noack, R., Henker, J., Pixa, A., Höfler, M., Behrendt, S., Bühringer, G., & Wïttchen, H. (2011) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.014 · Cited by 61 · cited 3× · see citing works
“(2012) randomized 122 adolescents and adults (aged 16–44) with cannabis dependence to (a) 10 sessions of CBT þME þ TAU or (b) WL control (Hoch et al., 2012).”
MethodTreatment of Marijuana Dependence: Preliminary Results
Roffman, R. A., Stephens, R. S., Simpson, E. E., & Whitaker, D. L. (1988) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.1988.10524382 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Marijuana discontinuation, anxiety symptoms, and relapse to marijuana
Bonn‐Miller, M. O., & Moos, R. H. (2009) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.04.009 · Cited by 42 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Cannabis users report that withdrawal symptoms are the primary reason for relapse (Bonn-Miller & Moos, 2009; Budney, Vandrey, Hughes, Thostenson, & Bursac, 2008; Cornelius, Chung, Martin, Clark, & Wood, 2007).”
BackgroundFactors in Marijuana Cessation among High-Risk Youth
Weiner, M. D., Sussman, S. Y., McCuller, W. J., & Lichtman, K. (1999) · Journal of Drug Education · doi:10.2190/pn5u-n5xb-f0vb-r2v1 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Primary outcomes in two randomized controlled trials of treatments for cannabis use disorders
Peters, E. N., Nich, C., & Carroll, K. M. (2011) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.04.021 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Review on psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis disorders
Zimmermann, P., Mühlig, S., Sonntag, D., Bühringer, G., & Wïttchen, H. (2004) · SUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and Practice · doi:10.1024/2004.05.07 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bakan D., 1967, On method
- Borenstein M., 1999, Comprehensive meta-analysis, a computer program for research synthesis
- Johnston L. D., 1995, National survey results on drug use from the monitoring the future study, 1975-1994
- Johnston L. D., 2003, Monitoring the future: National survey results on drug use, 1975-2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder
Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Le Foll, B., Hoch, E., Budney, A. J., & Hall, W. D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
Co-use of Alcohol and Cannabis: A Review
Yurasek, A. M., Aston, E. R., & Metrik, J. (2017) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-017-0149-8 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
DiClemente, C. C., Corno, C. M., Graydon, M. M., Wiprovnick, A. E., & Knoblach, D. J. (2017) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000318 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder
Gates, P. J., Sabioni, P., Copeland, J., Le Foll, B., & Gowing, L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005336.pub4 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Making the hard work of recovery more attractive for those with substance use disorders
McKay, J. R. (2017) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13502 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Risks Associated With the Non-Medicinal Use of Cannabis
Hoch, E., Bonnet, U., Thomasius, R., Ganzer, F., Havemann‐Reinecke, U., & Preuss, U. W. (2015) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0271 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Heavy cannabis use, dependence and the brain: a clinical perspective
Kroon, E., Kuhns, L., Hoch, E., & Cousijn, J. (2019) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.14776 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Dellazizzo, L., Potvin, S., Giguère, S., & Dumais, A. (2022) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15764 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
“use, there are several evidence-based treatments, including motivational interviewing, that may be offered [102].”
BackgroundClinical management of cannabis withdrawal
Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Budney, A. J., Foll, B. L., & Hall, W. (2021) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15743 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Boumparis, N., Loheide-Niesmann, L., Blankers, M., Ebert, D. D., Korf, D., Schaub, M. P., Spijkerman, R., Tait, R. J., & Riper, H. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Budney, A. J., Sofis, M. J., & Borodovsky, J. T. (2019) · European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s00406-018-0976-1 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Dark Classics in Chemical Neuroscience: Δ 9 -Tetrahydrocannabinol
Banister, S. D., Arnold, J. C., Connor, M. A., Glass, M., & McGregor, I. S. (2019) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00651 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Hoch, E., Preuss, U. W., Ferri, M., & Simon, R. (2016) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000445716 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Miranda, R., Padovano, H. T., Blanchard, A., Justus, A. N., Monti, P. M., Chun, T. H., Swift, R. M., Tidey, J. W., & Gwaltney, C. J. (2016) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.12350 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“Meta-analyses indicate that while psychosocial interventions are efficacious for reducing cannabis use, especially when compared with inactive control conditions, the majority of individuals do not experience sustained benefit (Davis et al. 2015).”
BackgroundDistinguishing subpopulations of marijuana users with latent profile analysis
Pearson, M. R., Bravo, A. J., & Conner, B. T. (2016) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.043 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“Introduction Increasing evidence suggests that heavy, chronic, and early onset marijuana use has a wide range of long-term negative consequences including cannabis use disorder (CUD), cognitive impairment, lower achievement, and poor educational outcomes (Volkow et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialDellazizzo, L., Potvin, S., Athanassiou, M., & Dumais, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.567887 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Nielsen, P., Christensen, M., Henderson, C., Liddle, H. A., Croquette-Krokar, M., Favez, N., & Rigter, H. (2021) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.2021.00022 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
McClure, E. A., Sonne, S. C., Winhusen, T. M., Carroll, K. M., Ghitza, U. E., McRae‐Clark, A. L., Matthews, A. G., Sharma, G., Veldhuisen, P. C. V., Vandrey, R. G., et al. (2014) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2014.08.011 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“, contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, and combinations) compared to control conditions [6], yet there remains substantial room for improvement, as the majority of patients fail to achieve sustained periods of abstinence [7– 9].”
Venner, K. L., Serier, K., Sarafin, R., Greenfield, B. L., Hirchak, K., Smith, J. E., & Witkiewitz, K. (2021) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15191 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Social cognitive predictors of treatment outcome in cannabis dependence
Gullo, M. J., Matveeva, M. J., Feeney, G. F. X., Young, R. M., & Connor, J. P. (2016) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.030 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Psychological therapies are the first line of treatment (Davis et al., 2015; Litt et al., 2008).”
BackgroundBeckham, J. C., Adkisson, K. A., Hertzberg, J., Kimbrel, N. A., Budney, A. J., Stephens, R. S., Moore, S. D., & Calhoun, P. S. (2017) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.12.007 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“…including contingency management (CM) approaches, have demonstrated short-term efficacy for the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD; (Carroll et al., 2006; Kadden, Litt, Kabela-Cormier, & Petry, 2007) and tobacco smoking (Carpenter et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2015; Hertzberg et al., 2013).”
BackgroundPrince, M. A., Collins, R. L., Wilson, S. D., & Vincent, P. C. (2019) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000301 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“PBS content was informed by recent reviews, which demonstrated that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; Davis et al., 2014), including elements of motivational enhancement therapy (MET; DiClemente, Corno, Graydon, Wiprovnik, & Knoblach, 2017), and problem solving were effective in reducing the…”
BackgroundInterventions for cannabis use disorder
Winters, K. C., Mader, J., Budney, A. J., Stanger, C., Knapp, A. A., & Walker, D. D. (2020) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.11.002 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
The effect of high-dose dronabinol (oral THC) maintenance on cannabis self-administration
Schlienz, N. J., Lee, D. C., Stitzer, M. L., & Vandrey, R. G. (2018) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.022 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Evidence-based Treatment Options in Cannabis Dependency
Walther, L., Gantner, A., Heinz, A., & Majiić, T. (2016) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2016.0653 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
DeMarce, J. M., Gnys, M., Raffa, S. D., Kumpula, M. J., & Karlin, B. E. (2019) · Substance Abuse · doi:10.1080/08897077.2019.1674238 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Wetherill, R. R., Jagannathan, K., Hager, N., Childress, A. R., & Franklin, T. R. (2015) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000036 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“…control trials) in the treatment of CUD and found that the effect sizes of behavioral therapies were superior to inactive waitlist control treatments; however, behavioral therapies did not outperform active control treatments (i.e., treatment as usual or psychological placebo; Davis et al., 2015).”
BackgroundResultMason, M. J., Zaharakis, N. M., Moore, M. R., Brown, A., Garcia, C., Seibers, A., & Stephens, C. J. (2018) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000403 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Working Memory Training for Adolescents With Cannabis Use Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Sweeney, M. M., Rass, O., DiClemente, C., Schacht, R. L., Vo, H. T., Fishman, M. J., Leoutsakos, J.-M. S., Mintzer, M. Z., & Johnson, M. W. (2018) · Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse · doi:10.1080/1067828x.2018.1451793 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Behavioral treatments for cannabis use disorders generally result in improved outcomes relative to control conditions (Davis et al., 2015), but rates of abstinence tend to be modest even with effective treatments (e.g., Stanger, Ryan, Scherer, Norton, & Budney, 2015) and treatment effects tend to…”
BackgroundJacobus, J., Squeglia, L. M., Escobar, S., McKenna, B. S., Mejia, M. H., Bagot, K. S., Taylor, C. T., & Huestis, M. A. (2017) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4725-3 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“…San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA 3 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Addiction Sciences Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA 4 School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA Cooper et al. 2015; Davis et al. 2015; Dennis et al. 2004).”
Psychological and psychosocial interventions for cannabis cessation in adults: A systematic review
Chatters, R., Cooper, K. L., Day, E., Knight, M., Lagundoye, O., Wong, R., & Kaltenthaler, E. (2015) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.3109/16066359.2015.1073719 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“All have found some positive effects of such interventions on cannabis users, but have only included a subset of the available evidence, for example, only including RCTs with non-active control conditions (Davis et al., 2015), non-intensive treatments (Dutra et al.”
BackgroundCannabis use disorder: from neurobiology to treatment
Foll, B. L., Tang, V. M., Rueda, S., Trick, L., & Boileau, I. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci172887 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“Individuals with CUD have abnor-ways of modulating the CB 1 transmission that may be devoid of the psychiatric side-effects of rimonabant.”
BackgroundA meta-analysis of the effect of substance use interventions on emotion outcomes.
Kang, D., Fairbairn, C. E., & Ariss, T. A. (2019) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000450 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“Of 19 authors contacted, 63% responded with the requested data (4 reports were excluded for author non-response, Davis et al., 2015; Decker, Morie, Hunkele, Babuscio, & Carroll, 2016; Holzhauer & Gamble, 2017; Minami, Bloom, Reed, Hayes, & Brown, 2015; 3 reports were excluded because the authors…”
BackgroundKrotter, A., Diego, G. A., Menéndez, A. G., González‐Roz, A., Secades‐Villa, R., & Pérez, Á. G. (2024) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100773 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Mental disorder comorbidity and treatment utilization
Rodriguez-Seijas, C. A., Eaton, N. R., Stohl, M., Mauro, P. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2017) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.02.003 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Cannabis: The never-ending, nefarious nepenthe of the 21st century: What should the clinician know?
Greydanus, D. E., Kaplan, G., Baxter, L. E., Patel, D. R., & Feucht, C. L. (2015) · Disease-a-Month · doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2015.01.004 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“A 2014 meta-analysis pooled the only 10 randomized controlled CUD studies available to date comparing various behavioral treatments against placebo conditions.(546) It concluded that the”
MethodCôté, J., Chicoine, G., Vinette, B., Auger, P., Rouleau, G., Fontaine, G., & Jutras‐Aswad, D. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/55031 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Karoly, H. C., Schacht, J. P., Jacobus, J., Meredith, L. R., Taylor, C. T., Tapert, S. F., Gray, K. M., & Squeglia, L. M. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.007 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“A recent meta-analysis indicated that patients with CUD who undergo behavioral treatments tend to have better outcomes (e.g., frequency and quantity of use, psychosocial functioning) compared to patients on a waitlist control (Davis et al., 2015).”
ResultSahlem, G. L., Kim, B., Baker, N. L., Wong, B. L., Caruso, M. A., Campbell, L. A., Kaloani, I., Sherman, B. J., Ford, T. J., Musleh, A. H., et al. (2023) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.111035 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Pacek, L. R., & Vandrey, R. G. (2014) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/a0037791 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Halicka, M., Parkhouse, T., Webster, K. E., Spiga, F., Hines, L. A., Freeman, T. P., Sanghera, S., Dawson, S., Paterson, C. A., Savović, J., et al. (2025) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.70084 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“For example, some reviews aggregate various types of PSIs for comparison against inactive controls in pairwise meta-analysis [13, 14], some provide a descriptive summary of results from individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [17], while others report an overview of findings from published…”
Destoop, M., Docx, L., Morrens, M., & Dom, G. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10040616 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Padovano, H. T., & Miranda, R. (2018) · Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.15288/jsad.2018.79.190 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“Cannabis misuse among youth is potentially damaging to long-term health (Crean et al., 2011; Meier et al., 2012; Volkow et al., 2014); yet, the majority of youth who receive treatment will not show lasting reductions in use (Bender et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2015).”
BackgroundGray, J. C., Treloar Padovano, H., Wemm, S. E., & Miranda, R. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000000843 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Cannabis Use Disorder: A Behavioral Economic Perspective
Aston, E. R., & Berey, B. L. (2022) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-021-00405-4 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Albertella, L., Gibson, L., Rooke, S. E., Norberg, M. M., & Copeland, J. (2019) · Journal of Cannabis Research · doi:10.1186/s42238-019-0009-6 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Gosens, L. C. F., Poelen, E. A. P., Didden, R., de Jonge, J. M., Schellekens, A., VanDerNagel, J., Onghena, P., & Otten, R. (2023) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2023.07.007 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Savoring as an intervention for cannabis use: acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary results
Mian, M. N., & Earleywine, M. (2022) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.1080/16066359.2022.2160871 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Gosens, L. C. F., Otten, R., Didden, R., & Poelen, E. A. P. (2020) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100616 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Rains, L. S., Steare, T., Mason, O. J., & Johnson, S. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034735 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Connor, J. P., Manthey, J., Hall, W., & Stjepanović, D. (2024) · European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s00406-024-01829-5 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“Three meta-analyses [14, 27, 28], three narrative systematic reviews [26, 29, 30] and one review of reviews [16] have analysed research on the effectiveness of separate psycho-social treatments in reducing cannabis use and promoting abstinence in adolescent and adults.”
InfluentialMonaghan, M., Hamilton, I., Lloyd, C., & Paton, K. (2015) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.3109/09687637.2015.1090398 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“BT was shown to be significantly more effective in reducing severity and frequency of use than control conditions although, while BT outperformed waiting list controls, it did not outperform active control conditions (Davis et al., 2015, p. 109).”
BackgroundGosens, L. C. F., Otten, R., de Jonge, J. M., Schellekens, A., VanDerNagel, J., Didden, R., & Poelen, E. A. P. (2021) · Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability · doi:10.3109/13668250.2021.1925529 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“In addition, CBT has proven to be effective in decreasing SU in individuals without MID-BIF (Davis et al., 2015; Riper et al., 2014) and adapted versions show promising results in decreasing SU in individuals with MID-BIF (Kiewik et al., 2020; Kouimtsidis et al., 2017; Schijven, Hulsmans, et al.,…”
MethodResultSoyka, M., Preuss, U. W., & Hoch, E. (2017) · Der Nervenarzt · doi:10.1007/s00115-017-0281-7 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“In stationären Einrichtungen kommen verschiedene Therapieelemente zum Einsatz: 4 Einzel- und Gruppentherapie, 4 Entspannungsverfahren, 4 Selbstsicherheitstraining, 4 soziales Training, 4 Rückfallmanagement, Mehrere Übersichtsarbeiten belegen, dass für Erwachsene Kombinationen aus MET, KBT und KM die höchste Effektivit…”
InfluentialGambling and Cannabis Use: Clinical and Policy Implications
Winters, K. C., & Whelan, J. (2019) · Journal of Gambling Studies · doi:10.1007/s10899-019-09919-z · Cited by 11 · see citing works
A scoping review of knowledge syntheses in the field of evaluation across four decades of practice
Lawarée, J., Jacob, S., & Ouimet, M. (2019) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101761 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Schijven, E. P., Hulsmans, D. H. G., VanDerNagel, J., Lammers, J., Otten, R., & Poelen, E. A. P. (2020) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15156 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“ness in decreasing alcohol and drug use among non‐disabled adolescents [19,20], and in adapted form they are also effective in people with MID‐BIF [21,22].”
BackgroundOlthof, M. I. A., Blankers, M., van Laar, M., & Goudriaan, A. E. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04962-3 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“tingency management are effective in reducing cannabis use [4].”
BackgroundDavis, A. K., & Arterberry, B. J. (2019) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2019.1596334 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“when compared towaitlist control conditions but not treatment as usual conditions (Davis et al. 2015).”
BackgroundRoehler, D. R., Hoots, B., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107810 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Glasner, S. V., KAY‐LAMBKIN, F. J., Budney, A. J., Gitlin, M. J., Kagan, B. L., Garneau, H. C., Ang, A., & Venegas, A. (2018) · Cannabis · doi:10.26828/cannabis.2018.02.004 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Published reviews indicate robust effects of psychosocial treatments for CUD (Davis et al., 2015; Budney, Roffman, Stephens, & Walker, 2007; McRae, Budney, & Brady, 2003; Nordstrom & Levin, 2007).”
BackgroundGullo, M. J., Papinczak, Z. E., Feeney, G. F. X., Young, R. M., & Connor, J. P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643107 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis use disorder. What do we know and what should we do?
Pouliquen, M. D., & Auriacombe, M. (2021) · L Encéphale · doi:10.1016/j.encep.2021.05.009 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Holistic Review of Cannabis and Its Potential Risks and Benefits in Mental Health
Borrego-Ruiz, A., & Borrego, J. J. (2025) · Psychiatry International · doi:10.3390/psychiatryint6030092 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use
Neumann, M., Bühringer, G., Höfler, M., Wïttchen, H., & Hoch, E. (2018) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000488345 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
López-Torrecillas, F., López-Quirantes, E. M., Maldonado, A., Albein‐Urios, N., Rueda, M. D. M., & Verdejo‐García, A. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188476 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Adolescent cannabis use disorders
Leung, J., Hall, W., & Degenhardt, L. J. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818626-8.00004-9 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Liu, C., & Li, Y. (2023) · Journal of Addictive Diseases · doi:10.1080/10550887.2022.2158664 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Østergård, O. K., del Palacio‐González, A., Nilsson, K. K., & Pedersen, M. U. (2021) · Nordic Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/08039488.2021.1921265 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Generally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found that interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing (MI) have better treatment outcomes than waitlist control, although the primary studies are methodological heterogeneous and contain inherent biases [5,6].”
BackgroundCognitive Behavioral Therapy in Cannabis Use Disorder
Güven, F. M., Çamsarı, U. M., Şenormancı, Ö., & Oğuz, G. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800756-3.00127-7 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Hindson, J., Hanstock, T. L., Dunlop, A. J., & KAY‐LAMBKIN, F. J. (2020) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/14344 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The internet is increasingly becoming an option to deliver psychological treatment, especially CBT and motivational interviewing (MI), which are psychosocial treatment strategies with the strongest evidence for reducing both cannabis and tobacco use [28].”
BackgroundIdentifying Subgroups of Cannabis Users Based on Help-Seeking Preferences: A Latent Class Analysis
Olthof, M. I. A., Blankers, M., van Laar, M., & Goudriaan, A. E. (2022) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000524938 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Li, Y., Niemelä, S., & Denissoff, A. (2025) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-025-00642-x · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Cannabis, Cannabinoide und Cannabiskonsumstörungen
Hoch, E., & Preuss, U. W. (2019) · PSYCH up2date · doi:10.1055/a-0847-9296 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“[43] Davis ML, Powers MB, Handelsman P et al.”
BackgroundGhelani, A. (2020) · The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare · doi:10.15453/0191-5096.4367 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“These programs are built on the foundations of the Minnesota Model and typically utilize evidence-based approaches such as motivational enhancement, contingency management, relapse prevention, and cognitive-behavior therapies (Davis et al., 2015; Gates et al., 2016).”
BackgroundSahlem, G. L., Kim, B., Baker, N. L., Wong, B. L., Caruso, M. A., Campbell, L. A., Kaloani, I., Sherman, B. J., Ford, T. J., Musleh, A. H., et al. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.07.10.23292461 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“…size of days-per-week of cannabis use of Cohen’s d=0.47 was comparable to the two pharmacotherapy trials that observed a difference in days-per-week of use (Cohen's d of 0.39-0.55) 11,13 , and to behavioral trials using a wait-list group as a comparator (Hedges’ g of 0.44 in meta-analysis) 14 .”
InfluentialGosens, L. C. F., Didden, R., de Jonge, J. M., Schellekens, A., VanDerNagel, J., Otten, R., & Poelen, E. A. P. (2025) · Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1080/19315864.2025.2459418 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Motivational Interviewing (MI) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are widely used, effective treatment methods for SUD (Davis et al., 2015; Naar & Safren, 2017; Riper et al., 2014; Smedslund et al., 2011).”
Sahlem, G. L., Dowdle, L. T., Baker, N. L., Sherman, B. J., Gray, K. M., McRae‐Clark, A. L., Froeliger, B., & Squeglia, L. M. (2023) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.09.006 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Saura, J., Feliu, A., Enríquez, M., Fu, M., Ballbè, M., Castellano, Y., Consuegra, M. P., Silva, N., Radeva, P. I., Maestre-González, E., et al. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/58335 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Konzeptualisierung der Psychotherapie bei ADHS und Sucht
Groß, S., & Philipsen, A. (2015) · SUCHT - Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis / Journal of Addiction Research and Practice · doi:10.1024/0939-5911.a000387 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Smith, J. A., Hayes, N. D., & Jordan, S. S. (2018) · Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07347324.2018.1502032 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“These include Motivational Interviewing (Sayegh, Huey, Zara, & Jhaveri, 2017; Tanner-Smith & Lipsey, 2015), Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (Davis et al., 2015), and 12-Step modalities (Ouimette, Finney, & Moos, 1997).”
Tustin, R. D. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22040612 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-Initiated Cannabis Use Cessation in Adolescents and Emerging Adults
Tsai, J., Little, M. A., & Sussman, S. Y. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800756-3.00125-3 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cannabis Use Among U.S. Military Veterans Following Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment
Mian, M. N., Osilla, K. C., & Blonigen, D. M. (2023) · Military Medicine · doi:10.1093/milmed/usad216 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Collins, A. C., Bhattacharya, S., Oh, J. Y., Salzhauer, A. J., Taylor, C. T., Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Aupperle, R. L., Budney, A. J., & Jacobson, N. C. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/54751 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Meta-analytic findings have revealed that these therapies are superior to control or waitlist conditions; however, they are not superior to other active control therapies, including treatment as usual [33].”
BackgroundRevisión del tratamiento psicológico de la adicción al cannabis
Lomba, C. G., & López‐Durán, A. (2017) · African journal of rhetoric · doi:10.21134/haaj.v17i1.270 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“La revisión de Davis et al. (2014), en cambio, resalta la ausencia de diferencias significativas entre los tratamientos breves y extensos.”
BackgroundNon-pharmacological Treatments for Cannabis Use Disorders
Aklin, W. M., & Bedard‐Gilligan, M. A. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90365-1_23 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Regier, P. S., Gawrysiak, M. J., Jagannathan, K., Childress, A. R., Franklin, T. R., & Wetherill, R. R. (2022) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports · doi:10.1016/j.dadr.2022.100098 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
CANDIS Program: Modular Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorders
Hoch, E., & Rohrbacher, H. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800756-3.00130-7 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cannabis Use Disorder Treatment and Reimbursement
Kiselica, A. M., & Duhig, A. M. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90365-1_25 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Psychotherapieforschung bei Suchterkrankungen
Dürsteler, K. M., Vogel, M., & Walter, M. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-3-437-23021-9.00005-9 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Cultural Considerations in the Behavioral Assessment and Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders
Paul, N., Lopez, L., Strong, M., & Donohue, B. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32229-8_28
Woodhead, E. L., Brief, D. J., Below, M., & Timko, C. (2020) · Journal of Drug Issues · doi:10.1177/0022042620957013 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Pereira‐Morales, A. J., Mayorga, M. F. R., Ramírez-Cortázar, F., & Eslava-Schmalbach, J. H. (2025) · Revista Colombiana de Psicología · doi:10.15446/rcp.v34n2.113988 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Rysen, K. K., Carusone, J. M., Wardell, J. D., Schaub, M. P., Wenger, A., Wallbridge, H. R., Edgerton, J. D., Kruk, R. S., Mackenzie, C. S., & Keough, M. T. (2026) · Journal of Cannabis Research · doi:10.1186/s42238-025-00378-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A Survey of Payer Perspectives on Cannabis Use Disorder
Kiselica, A. M., Duhig, A. M., Montoya, I. D., Skolnick, P., Floyd, J., & Byars, C. (2018) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2018.1473432 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“A recent meta-analysis of randomized © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC controlled trials concluded that individuals receiving one of these interventions fared better than 66% of individuals in control conditions, corresponding to a moderate effect size improvement (Davis et al., 2015).”
MethodHoch, E. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57369-3_44 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Fekih‐Romdhane, F., Ounis, R., Cheour, M., & Hallit, S. R. (2024) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-024-01337-6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Rigter, H. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800756-3.00126-5
“This conclusion is tentative as an important part of the evidence relies on the outcomes of randomized trials in which CBT was compared with placement of persons on a waiting list (Davis et al., 2015), which is not top of the bill research methodology.”
BackgroundComment réduire la consommation de cannabis ?
Laprévote, V., & Schwan, R. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-2-294-76179-9.00014-0
- Authors
- Davis, M. L., Powers, M. B., Handelsman, P., Medina, J. L., Zvolensky, M., & Smits, J. A. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Roosevelt University (US)
- University of Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Michelle L.
- Venue
- Evaluation & the Health Professions
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-04-02
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-114
- ISSN
- 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3918
- PMC
- PMC4429893
- OpenAlex
- W2170981263
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01da027533-04)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA027533, R34DA031038, F31DA036919, K01DA035930)
- 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, behavior therapy, contingency management, relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment effectiveness, waitlist control, active control, psychosocial functioning
- MeSH terms
- Marijuana Abuse, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
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
