-
American Journal of Men's Health 2019Globally, there is increasing usage and legalization of cannabis. In addition to its reported therapeutic effects, cannabis has several health risks which are not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Globally, there is increasing usage and legalization of cannabis. In addition to its reported therapeutic effects, cannabis has several health risks which are not clearly defined. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most common male sexual disorder and there are plausible mechanisms linking cannabis use to ED. No attempt has been made to collate the literature on this topic. The aim of this review was to summarize the prevalence and risk of ED in cannabis users compared to controls. A systematic review of major databases from inception to January 1, 2019, without language restriction, was undertaken to identify studies investigating cannabis use and presence of ED. The analysis compared the prevalence of ED in cannabis users versus controls. Consequently, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated, applying a random-effect model. Five case-control studies were included with data from 3,395 healthy men, 1,035 using cannabis (smoking) and 2,360 nonusers. The overall prevalence of ED in cannabis users was 69.1% (95% CI: 38.0-89.1), whilst the correspondent figure in controls was 34.7% (95% CI: 20.3-52.7). The OR of ED in cannabis users was almost four times that of controls (OR = 3.83; 95% CI: 1.30-11.28; = .02), even if characterized by high heterogeneity ( = 90%) and the prediction intervals overlapped 1.00 (95% CI: 0.35-7.26). Data suggest that ED is twice as high in cannabis users compared to controls. Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm/refute this and explore if a dose-response relationship between cannabis and ED may be evident.
Topics: Adult; Cannabis; Case-Control Studies; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Reference Values; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31795801
DOI: 10.1177/1557988319892464 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.
PubMed: 31588993
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010901.pub3 -
Psychological Medicine Oct 2020Risk prediction algorithms have long been used in health research and practice (e.g. prediction of cardiovascular disease and diabetes). However, similar tools have not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Risk prediction algorithms have long been used in health research and practice (e.g. prediction of cardiovascular disease and diabetes). However, similar tools have not been developed for mental health. For example, for psychotic disorders, attempts to sum environmental risk are rare, unsystematic and dictated by available data. In light of this, we sought to develop a valid, easy to use measure of the aggregate environmental risk score (ERS) for psychotic disorders.
METHODS
We reviewed the literature to identify well-replicated and validated environmental risk factors for psychosis that combine a significant effect and large-enough prevalence. Pooled estimates of relative risks were taken from the largest available meta-analyses. We devised a method of scoring the level of exposure to each risk factor to estimate ERS. Relative risks were rounded as, due to the heterogeneity of the original studies, risk effects are imprecisely measured.
RESULTS
Six risk factors (ethnic minority status, urbanicity, high paternal age, obstetric complications, cannabis use and childhood adversity) were used to generate the ERS. A distribution for different levels of risk based on simulated data showed that most of the population would be at low/moderate risk with a small minority at increased environmental risk for psychosis.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic approach to develop an aggregate measure of environmental risk for psychoses in asymptomatic individuals. This can be used as a continuous measure of liability to disease; mostly relevant to areas where the original studies took place. Its predictive ability will improve with the collection of additional, population-specific data.
Topics: Adverse Childhood Experiences; Environment; Ethnicity; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Minority Groups; Obstetric Labor Complications; Paternal Age; Pregnancy; Psychotic Disorders; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Urban Population
PubMed: 31535606
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291719002319 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Jun 2019Cannabis is commonly used in cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) due to its antiemetic and anxiolytic properties. Paradoxically, chronic cannabis use in the context of cyclic...
Cannabis is commonly used in cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) due to its antiemetic and anxiolytic properties. Paradoxically, chronic cannabis use in the context of cyclic vomiting has led to the recognition of a putative new disorder called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). Since its first description in 2004, numerous case series and case reports have emerged describing this phenomenon. Although not pathognomonic, a patient behavior called "compulsive hot water bathing" has been associated with CHS. There is considerable controversy about how CHS is defined. Most of the data remain heterogenous with limited follow-up, making it difficult to ascertain whether chronic cannabis use is causal, merely a clinical association with CVS, or unmasks or triggers symptoms in patients inherently predisposed to develop CVS. This article will discuss the role of cannabis in the regulation of nausea and vomiting, specifically focusing on both CVS and CHS, in order to address controversies in this context. To this objective, we have collated and analyzed published case series and case reports on CHS in order to determine the number of reported cases that meet current Rome IV criteria for CHS. We have also identified limitations in the existing diagnostic framework and propose revised criteria to diagnose CHS. Future research in this area should improve our understanding of the role of cannabis use in cyclic vomiting and help us better understand and manage this disorder.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Syndrome; Vomiting
PubMed: 31241817
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13606 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jul 2019Frequent Cannabis use has been linked to a variety of negative mental, physical, and social consequences. We assessed the effects of digital prevention and treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Frequent Cannabis use has been linked to a variety of negative mental, physical, and social consequences. We assessed the effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions on Cannabis use reduction in comparison with control conditions.
METHODS
Systematic review with two separate meta-analyses. Thirty randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review, and 21 were included in the meta-analyses. Primary outcome was self-reported Cannabis use at post-treatment and follow-up. Hedges's g was calculated for all comparisons with non-active control. Risk of bias was examined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 10 prevention interventions targeting 8138 participants (aged 12 to 20) and 20 treatment interventions targeting 5195 Cannabis users (aged 16 to 40). The meta-analyses showed significantly reduced Cannabis use at post-treatment in the prevention interventions (6 studies, N = 2564, g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.001) and in the treatment interventions (17 comparisons, N = 3813, g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.02) as compared with controls. The effects of prevention interventions were maintained at follow-ups of up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N = 2445, g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p < 0.001) but were no longer statistically significant for treatment interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital prevention and treatment interventions showed small, significant reduction effects on Cannabis use in diverse target populations at post-treatment compared to controls. For prevention interventions, the post-treatment effects were maintained at follow-up up to 12 months later.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Behavior Therapy; Child; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Marijuana Smoking; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapy, Computer-Assisted; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31112834
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016 -
PloS One 2019The number of jurisdictions allowing access to medicinal cannabis has been steadily increasing since the state of California introduced legislation in 1996. Although...
BACKGROUND
The number of jurisdictions allowing access to medicinal cannabis has been steadily increasing since the state of California introduced legislation in 1996. Although there is a high degree of legislative heterogeneity across jurisdictions, the involvement of a health professional is common among all. This places health professionals at the forefront of therapy, yet no systematic review of literature has offered insight into the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis.
METHODS
Using a predetermined study protocol, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed up to the 1st August 2018. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied uniformly. Screening for relevancy, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias were completed by two independent investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using CASP criteria (qualitative) and a modified domain-based risk assessment tool (quantitative).
RESULTS
Of the 15,775 studies retrieved, 106 underwent full-text review and of these, 26 were included. The overall risk of bias was considered low across all included studies. The general impression was that health professionals supported the use of medicinal cannabis in practice; however, there was a unanimous lack of self-perceived knowledge surrounding all aspects of medicinal cannabis. Health professionals also voiced concern regarding direct patient harms and indirect societal harms.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review has offered a lens through which to view the existing literature surrounding the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis. These results are limited, however, by the implicit common-sense models of behaviour utilised by the included studies. Before strategies can be developed and implemented to change health professional behaviour, a more thorough understanding of the factors that underpin the delivery of medicinal cannabis is necessary.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Culture; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Medical Marijuana
PubMed: 31059531
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216556 -
JAMA Psychiatry Apr 2019Cannabis is the most commonly used drug of abuse by adolescents in the world. While the impact of adolescent cannabis use on the development of psychosis has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cannabis is the most commonly used drug of abuse by adolescents in the world. While the impact of adolescent cannabis use on the development of psychosis has been investigated in depth, little is known about the impact of cannabis use on mood and suicidality in young adulthood.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a summary estimate of the extent to which cannabis use during adolescence is associated with the risk of developing subsequent major depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Proquest Dissertations and Theses were searched from inception to January 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Longitudinal and prospective studies, assessing cannabis use in adolescents younger than 18 years (at least 1 assessment point) and then ascertaining development of depression in young adulthood (age 18 to 32 years) were selected, and odds ratios (OR) adjusted for the presence of baseline depression and/or anxiety and/or suicidality were extracted.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study quality was assessed using the Research Triangle Institute item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies. Two reviewers conducted all review stages independently. Selected data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The studies assessing cannabis use and depression at different points from adolescence to young adulthood and reporting the corresponding OR were included. In the studies selected, depression was diagnosed according to the third or fourth editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or by using scales with predetermined cutoff points.
RESULTS
After screening 3142 articles, 269 articles were selected for full-text review, 35 were selected for further review, and 11 studies comprising 23 317 individuals were included in the quantitative analysis. The OR of developing depression for cannabis users in young adulthood compared with nonusers was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.16-1.62; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for anxiety was not statistically significant: 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84-1.67; I2 = 42%). The pooled OR for suicidal ideation was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.11-2.03; I2 = 0%), and for suicidal attempt was 3.46 (95% CI, 1.53-7.84, I2 = 61.3%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Although individual-level risk remains moderate to low and results from this study should be confirmed in future adequately powered prospective studies, the high prevalence of adolescents consuming cannabis generates a large number of young people who could develop depression and suicidality attributable to cannabis. This is an important public health problem and concern, which should be properly addressed by health care policy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior; Age Factors; Anxiety; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Marijuana Use; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide, Attempted
PubMed: 30758486
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or no pharmacotherapy (supportive care) for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving the use of medications to treat cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in people diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs involving 1755 participants: 18 studies recruited adults (mean age 22 to 41 years); three studies targeted young people (mean age 20 years). Most (75%) participants were male. The studies were at low risk of performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. One study was at risk of selection bias, and three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications were diverse, as were the outcomes reported, which limited the extent of analysis.Abstinence at end of treatment was no more likely with Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) preparations than with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.52; 305 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). For selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in the likelihood of abstinence at end of treatment compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was qualitative evidence of reduced intensity of withdrawal symptoms with THC preparations compared to placebo. For other pharmacotherapies, this outcome was either not examined, or no significant differences was reported.Adverse effects were no more likely with THC preparations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 318 participants; 3 studies) or N-acetylcysteine (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23; 418 participants; 2 studies) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence). For SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects with THC preparations, SSRIs antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of treatment completion with THC preparations, SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants and buspirone compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence) or with N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; 418 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers appeared to reduce the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92; 141 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant), oxytocin (neuropeptide) and atomoxetine was insufficient for estimates of effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many outcomes the quality of the evidence was low or very low. Findings indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, bupropion, buspirone and atomoxetine are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Given the limited evidence of efficacy, THC preparations should be considered still experimental, with some positive effects on withdrawal symptoms and craving. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin, oxytocin, and N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Buspirone; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 30687936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008940.pub3 -
Adicciones Jan 2020The use of cannabis for recreational purposes has increased worldwide, and the proportion of cannabis users in the adolescent population is high. Susceptibility to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The use of cannabis for recreational purposes has increased worldwide, and the proportion of cannabis users in the adolescent population is high. Susceptibility to cannabis use involves various factors, including childhood adversity; however, the effects of different types of violence on cannabis use have not been evaluated. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of different types of violence on cannabis use in adolescence. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Ovid and CONRICyT) using the following algorithm: (("Cannabis" OR "Marijuana Smoking" OR "Marijuana Abuse") AND ("Child Abuse" OR "Domestic Violence" AND "Adolescent")), considering all articles published up to November 3th, 2017. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the effects of experiencing different types of violence during childhood on cannabis use. Six studies, which represented 10 843 adolescents of both sexes, were ultimately included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Three types of early-life adversity were associated with cannabis abuse/dependence: physical abuse (OR: 1.58, 95% CI [1.01-2.46]), sexual abuse (OR: 2.35, 95% CI [1.64-3.35]), and witnessing violence (OR: 3.22, 95% CI [0.63-16.54]). The results indicated that two specific types of child maltreatment, sexual and physical abuse, were critical factors affecting vulnerability to cannabis use in adolescence. The number of studies examining other types of violence was limited. The results highlighted the importance of enhancing efforts to prevent violence, particularly sexual abuse, as part of integral programs designed to prevent cannabis abuse and dependence.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior; Adverse Childhood Experiences; Child Abuse; Exposure to Violence; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse
PubMed: 30627731
DOI: 10.20882/adicciones.1050 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jan 2019Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is prevalent and demand for treatment is increasing, yet few individuals engage in formal treatment and the efficacy of established...
Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is prevalent and demand for treatment is increasing, yet few individuals engage in formal treatment and the efficacy of established interventions for CUD is modest. Existing clinical trials evaluating psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for CUD have incorporated a wide variety of measures for assessing cannabis use outcomes, including abstinence, self-reported frequency and quantity used, withdrawal, use/dependence severity, and other psychosocial outcomes. The heterogeneity of measures and outcomes has limited quantitative analyses of the comparative effectiveness of existing interventions. The purpose of this systematic review is to: 1) identify and characterize approaches for measuring cannabis use in existing CUD intervention trials, including abstinence, frequency and quantity of use, and 2) summarize measures used to assess treatment efficacy in other outcome domains (e.g., cannabis use severity, psychosocial functioning, cannabis withdrawal), and provide a platform for future research to evaluate which outcome measures are most likely to reflect treatment efficacy and clinically significant improvement in other outcome domains.
Topics: Cannabis; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Self Report; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30530238
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.020