European Neuropsychopharmacology

2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.014

|View full text |Cite

|

Sign up to set email alerts

|

Efficacy of a targeted cognitive–behavioral treatment program for cannabis use disorders (CANDIS*)

¹

,

²

,

³

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Cbt Versus Wait-list Control5

Citation Types

Supporting

0

Mentioning

78

Contrasting

0

Unclassified

7

Year Published

2015

2015

2020

2020

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Book3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent6

Authors

Journals

Cited by 53 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

0

Mentioning

78

Contrasting

0

Unclassified

7

Order By: Relevance

“…Six studies (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland, Swift, Roffman, & Stephens, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman, Andreoni, & Laranjeira, 2007;Stephens, Roffman, & Curtin, 2000) compared CBT (4-14 sessions) versus wait-list control. Five (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007) provided individual CBT sessions and one (Stephens et al, 2000) group sessions.…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007) provided individual CBT sessions and one (Stephens et al, 2000) group sessions. CBT interventions also incorporated other components including case management (Babor et al, 2004) and a social support group (Stephens et al, 2000).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBT interventions also incorporated other components including case management (Babor et al, 2004) and a social support group (Stephens et al, 2000). The majority of studies only included participants who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria for cannabis dependence (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012;Stephens et al, 2000). The remaining studies included participants who used cannabis a certain number of times a month (Hoch et al, 2014;Jungerman et al, 2007).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies (Babor et al, 2004;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007;Stephens et al, 2000) reported post treatment (5-18 weeks) outcomes. All five reported significantly better results for CBT (4-14 sessions) than for wait-list on all key outcomes (cannabis usage, severity of dependence, dependence symptoms, and cannabis problems).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effect sizes were small to very large where reported. Full intervention session attendance ranged from 65% (Hoch et al, 2014) to 86% (Hoch et al, 2012 Figure 1. Study selection process -Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Psychological and psychosocial interventions for cannabis cessation in adults: A systematic review

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2015

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Many psychological and psychosocial interventions have been developed to treat regular users of cannabis, but it is unclear which intervention(s) are the most effective. This article aims to assess the effectiveness of psychological and psychosocial interventions for cannabis cessation, and to outline priorities for future research. Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Eleven databases were searched in February 2014. Results: Twenty-six RCTs were identified; the majority were considered to be at a high risk of bias. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly improved outcomes compared with wait-list in five studies post-treatment, maintained at 9 months in the one study with later follow-up. Studies of motivational interviewing (MI) or motivational enhancement therapy (MET) gave mixed results, with some improvements over waitlist while some comparisons were not significant. Four studies comparing CBT against MI/MET gave mixed results; longer courses of CBT provided some improvements over shorter MI. Courses of other types of therapy (social support groups and case management) gave similar improvements to CBT. Vouchers for abstinence (contingency management) gave promising results in the short-term and at follow-up. Conclusion: Studies were heterogeneous, covering a range of interventions, comparators, populations and outcomes. CBT improved short-term outcomes in a clinically dependent self-selected population of cannabis users. Brief MI improved short-term outcomes at post-treatment in a younger non-clinically dependent population. There is some evidence that CBT may be more effective than briefer MI interventions although results were mixed. Contingency management may enhance long-term outcomes in combination with CBT in clinically dependent individuals.

“…Six studies (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland, Swift, Roffman, & Stephens, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman, Andreoni, & Laranjeira, 2007;Stephens, Roffman, & Curtin, 2000) compared CBT (4-14 sessions) versus wait-list control. Five (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007) provided individual CBT sessions and one (Stephens et al, 2000) group sessions.…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007) provided individual CBT sessions and one (Stephens et al, 2000) group sessions. CBT interventions also incorporated other components including case management (Babor et al, 2004) and a social support group (Stephens et al, 2000).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBT interventions also incorporated other components including case management (Babor et al, 2004) and a social support group (Stephens et al, 2000). The majority of studies only included participants who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria for cannabis dependence (Babor et al, 2004;Copeland et al, 2001;Hoch et al, 2012;Stephens et al, 2000). The remaining studies included participants who used cannabis a certain number of times a month (Hoch et al, 2014;Jungerman et al, 2007).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies (Babor et al, 2004;Hoch et al, 2012Hoch et al, , 2014Jungerman et al, 2007;Stephens et al, 2000) reported post treatment (5-18 weeks) outcomes. All five reported significantly better results for CBT (4-14 sessions) than for wait-list on all key outcomes (cannabis usage, severity of dependence, dependence symptoms, and cannabis problems).…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effect sizes were small to very large where reported. Full intervention session attendance ranged from 65% (Hoch et al, 2014) to 86% (Hoch et al, 2012 Figure 1. Study selection process -Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.…”

Section: Cbt Versus Wait-list Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Psychological and psychosocial interventions for cannabis cessation in adults: A systematic review

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2015

Addiction Research & Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Many psychological and psychosocial interventions have been developed to treat regular users of cannabis, but it is unclear which intervention(s) are the most effective. This article aims to assess the effectiveness of psychological and psychosocial interventions for cannabis cessation, and to outline priorities for future research. Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Eleven databases were searched in February 2014. Results: Twenty-six RCTs were identified; the majority were considered to be at a high risk of bias. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly improved outcomes compared with wait-list in five studies post-treatment, maintained at 9 months in the one study with later follow-up. Studies of motivational interviewing (MI) or motivational enhancement therapy (MET) gave mixed results, with some improvements over waitlist while some comparisons were not significant. Four studies comparing CBT against MI/MET gave mixed results; longer courses of CBT provided some improvements over shorter MI. Courses of other types of therapy (social support groups and case management) gave similar improvements to CBT. Vouchers for abstinence (contingency management) gave promising results in the short-term and at follow-up. Conclusion: Studies were heterogeneous, covering a range of interventions, comparators, populations and outcomes. CBT improved short-term outcomes in a clinically dependent self-selected population of cannabis users. Brief MI improved short-term outcomes at post-treatment in a younger non-clinically dependent population. There is some evidence that CBT may be more effective than briefer MI interventions although results were mixed. Contingency management may enhance long-term outcomes in combination with CBT in clinically dependent individuals.

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder

²

,

³

et al. 2016

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Intervention versus inactive control, Outcome 14 Reduction in cannabis-related problems at shortterm follow-up (intervention intensity

Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Motivational Enhancement Therapy for Reducing Substance Use

¹

,

²

,

³

2016

J Addict Offender Couns

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors report the findings of a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing motivational enhancement therapy with no treatment and alternative treatments. Mean effect‐size data are reported. Implications and suggestions for counseling practice and future research are provided.

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Product

Browser Extension Assistant by scite Citation Statement Search Reference Check Visualizations Dashboards Explore Journals Explore Organizations Explore Funders Embedding Badge Embedding Citation Search Pricing

Resources

Blog Help & FAQ Accessibility Statement API Terms For Universities & Governments For Researchers For Publishers For Corporate, Pharma & Enterprise Author Marketing Become an Affiliate Get an organization trial or quote scite Data & Services

About

News & Press Careers Read our Paper Coverage

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.