The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 18 Own interpretation · 17 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
plainn = 2,027- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common treatment condition component was ME, used in nine studies”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, consistent with prediction, BT outperformed control conditions on primary outcomes (Hedges’ g = .49)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
plaindirectn = 2,027- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
hedgeddirectn = 2,027 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across studies, the most common control condition was WL accounting for seven studies”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: [0.73, 6.48], p < .001)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, there are now 10 RCTs available compared to only 5 in the previous analysis.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bender, Tripodi, Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, improving treatment effectiveness for CUDs may require developing augmentative treatments directly targeting the biobehavioral mechanisms underlying cannabis use maintenance and relapse.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The vast majority of persons with any substance use disorder do not fully benefit from existing intervention protocols.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Large, Sharma, Compton, Slade, & Nielssen, 2011
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites McRae et al., 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosenthal, 1991
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“studies suggest that many patients do not show a positive treatment response, indicating that cannabis dependence is not easily treated”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McRae, Budney, and Brady, 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dutra et al., 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therefore, any meta-analysis of published studies may be missing nonsignificant studies and therefore overestimate the overall effect size.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Publication Bias “The File Drawer Problem”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bakan, 1967
- Not checked yetcites McNemar, 1960
- Not checked yetcites Smart, 1964
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Accordingly, increasing endocannabinoid levels during cannabis cessation attempts (i.e., during active BT) may improve outcomes by reducing withdrawal symptoms (Clapper et al., 2009).”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Discussion > Major Findings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clapper et al., 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which indicates a need for the development and evaluation of augmentative intervention strategies relevant to this population.”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Summary and Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“Hedges’ g = 0.14, SE = 0.12”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“95% CI: [0.39, 1.16], p = .25”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“Hedges’ g = 0.56, SE = 0.09”
§ Behavioral Therapies for Treatment-Seeking Cannabis Users: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials > Results > Analysis of Heterogeneity
“95% CI: [0.73, 6.48]”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
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×
“…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
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
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 4,280 · cited 1×
“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
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
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
Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5931 · Cited by 2,561
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
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
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 389
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
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
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
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 142
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 133
Dellazizzo, L., Potvin, S., Giguère, S., & Dumais, A. (2022) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15764 · Cited by 120
“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 128
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
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 113
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
Hoch, E., Preuss, U. W., Ferri, M., & Simon, R. (2016) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000445716 · Cited by 78
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
“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
“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 72
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
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
“, 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
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
“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
“…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 36
“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
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
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
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
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
“…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
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
“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 29
“…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
“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 28
“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
“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 31
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 25
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
“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 24
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
“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
Pacek, L. R., & Vandrey, R. G. (2014) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/a0037791 · Cited by 18
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
“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
Padovano, H. T., & Miranda, R. (2018) · Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.15288/jsad.2018.79.190 · Cited by 18
“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
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
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 21
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
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
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
Rains, L. S., Steare, T., Mason, O. J., & Johnson, S. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034735 · Cited by 13
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 14
“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
“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
“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
“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
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 12
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
“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 12
“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
“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
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
“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
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
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 13
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
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
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 8
Liu, C., & Li, Y. (2023) · Journal of Addictive Diseases · doi:10.1080/10550887.2022.2158664 · Cited by 10
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
“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
Hindson, J., Hanstock, T. L., Dunlop, A. J., & KAY‐LAMBKIN, F. J. (2020) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/14344 · Cited by 4
“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
Li, Y., Niemelä, S., & Denissoff, A. (2025) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-025-00642-x · Cited by 4
Cannabis, Cannabinoide und Cannabiskonsumstörungen
Hoch, E., & Preuss, U. W. (2019) · PSYCH up2date · doi:10.1055/a-0847-9296 · Cited by 4
“[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
“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
“…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
“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
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
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
Smith, J. A., Hayes, N. D., & Jordan, S. S. (2018) · Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07347324.2018.1502032 · Cited by 3
“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
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
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
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
“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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
Metadata
- 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 (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
