2021
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.730153
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Users' Attitudes Toward Anonymous Internet Interventions for Cannabis vs. Alcohol Use: A Secondary Analysis of Data From Two Clinical Trials

Abstract: Background: Numerous trials have demonstrated the efficacy of internet interventions targeting alcohol or cannabis use, yet a substantial proportion of users do not benefit from the format, warranting further research to identify moderators of treatment effects. Users' initial attitudes toward treatment is a potential moderator, yet no previous study has investigated users' attitudes in the context of internet interventions for addictive disorders.Method: In this secondary analysis on two internet-based trials… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 58 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, there are strengths and weaknesses to the requirement that participants provide a postal address. As a limitation, the decision may limit the external validity of the trial because some people will prefer anonymity and thus declined to participate ( Romero et al, 2021 ). On the other hand, the requirement of a postal address (and telephone number) had a number of strengths that increased the internal validity of the study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, there are strengths and weaknesses to the requirement that participants provide a postal address. As a limitation, the decision may limit the external validity of the trial because some people will prefer anonymity and thus declined to participate ( Romero et al, 2021 ). On the other hand, the requirement of a postal address (and telephone number) had a number of strengths that increased the internal validity of the study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%