Cited by 68Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Primary Prevention of Cannabis Use: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Norberg, Melissa M., Kezelman, Sarah, Lim-Howe, Nicholas·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

A systematic review of primary prevention was conducted for cannabis use outcomes in youth and young adults. The aim of the review was to develop a comprehensive understanding of prevention programming by assessing universal, targeted, uni-modal, and multi-modal approaches as well as individual program characteristics. Twenty-eight articles, representing 25 unique studies, identified from eight electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, DRUG, EBM Reviews, and Project CORK), were eligible for inclusion. Results indicated that primary prevention programs can be effective in reducing cannabis use in youth populations, with statistically significant effect sizes ranging from trivial (0.07) to extremely large (5.26), with the majority of significant effect sizes being trivial to small. Given that the preponderance of significant effect sizes were trivial to small and that percentages of statistically significant and non-statistically significant findings were often equivalent across program type and individual components, the effectiveness of primary prevention for cannabis use should be interpreted with caution. Universal multi-modal programs appeared to outperform other program types (i.e, universal uni-modal, targeted multi-modal, targeted unimodal). Specifically, universal multi-modal programs that targeted early adolescents (10-13 year olds), utilised non-teacher or multiple facilitators, were short in duration (10 sessions or less), and implemented boosters sessions were associated with large median effect sizes. While there were studies in these areas that contradicted these results, the results highlight the importance of assessing the interdependent relationship of program components and program types. Finally, results indicated that the overall quality of included studies was poor, with an average quality rating of 4.64 out of 9. Thus, further quality research and reporting and the development of new innovative programs are required.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0053187

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [10]Sanderson CA (2004) Health Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  2. [32]EPOC (2009) Data Collection Checklist. 64 Risk of Bias: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group.
  3. [80]Spoth RL, Redmond C, Trudeau L, Shin C (2002) Longitudinal Substance Initiation Outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16: 129– 134. 12079251

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norberg, M. M., Kezelman, S., & Lim-Howe, N.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Norberg, Melissa M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-01-11
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e53187
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066699323
Cited by
68
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 prevention, primary prevention, youth, young adults, universal prevention programs, early adolescents, booster sessions, program effectiveness, study quality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Marijuana Abuse, Child, Humans, Preventive Health Services, Program Evaluation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review