Treating cannabis use disorder: Exploring a treatment as needed model with 34-month follow-up.


Journal

Journal of substance abuse treatment
ISSN: 1873-6483
Titre abrégé: J Subst Abuse Treat
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8500909

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
received: 04 02 2020
revised: 15 05 2020
accepted: 13 07 2020
entrez: 20 8 2020
pubmed: 20 8 2020
medline: 29 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Research has demonstrated that motivational enhancement (MET) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are some of the most effective interventions for adults with cannabis use disorder (CUD). As few as two sessions of combined MET and CBT has produced abstinence and reductions in cannabis use greater than delayed treatment controls. Despite their efficacy, outcomes in previous studies yielded abstinence rates from cannabis in the range of 20-30% at follow-ups of 6 to 12 months, and CUD remained a chronic condition for many. Additional models of providing treatment "as needed" (PRN), rather than as a single fixed-dose, are necessary to meet the different needs of adults with CUD and reengage those who do not respond to treatment initially or who relapse later. In the current study, 87 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for cannabis dependence were randomly assigned to receive either a fixed-dose of nine sessions of MET/CBT or to a PRN condition that provided a smaller initial dose of treatment, but allowed repeated access to treatment for 28 months. Cannabis use and associated problems were assessed every six months throughout a 34-month period. More than one-third of participants in the PRN condition accessed additional treatment episodes, but the total number of treatment sessions that participants utilized was comparable across conditions. Both treatments yielded significant reductions in cannabis use and associated problems at each follow-up. Contrary to hypotheses, the PRN condition did not yield better outcomes at the longer-term follow-ups. The fixed-dose condition produced greater rates of abstinence at the first follow-up, but otherwise there were no between group differences in outcomes. Future studies should test active approaches to reengaging participants with treatment when initial outcomes are less than optimal.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32811637
pii: S0740-5472(20)30344-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108088
pmc: PMC7478338
mid: NIHMS1616479
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

108088

Subventions

Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA014050
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Addiction. 2002 Dec;97 Suppl 1:109-24
pubmed: 12460133
Eval Program Plann. 2003 Aug;26(3):339-352
pubmed: 30034059
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Oct;68(5):898-908
pubmed: 11068976
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Dec;68(6):1051-61
pubmed: 11142539
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983 Jun;51(3):390-5
pubmed: 6863699
Addiction. 2009 Jun;104(6):959-71
pubmed: 19344441
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998 Nov;6(4):419-26
pubmed: 9861556
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004 Jun;72(3):455-66
pubmed: 15279529
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001 Sep;21(2):55-64; discussion 65-6
pubmed: 11551733
Addiction. 2002 Dec;97 Suppl 1:135-42
pubmed: 12460135
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015 Sep;56:11-5
pubmed: 25922136
Psychol Methods. 2002 Jun;7(2):147-77
pubmed: 12090408
Addict Behav. 2018 Jan;76:52-60
pubmed: 28755613
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993 Dec;61(6):1100-4
pubmed: 8113490
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 05;(5):CD005336
pubmed: 27149547
Addiction. 2015 Jan;110(1):19-35
pubmed: 25287883
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;72(12):1235-42
pubmed: 26502112

Auteurs

Robert S Stephens (RS)

Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 890 Drillfield Drive, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America. Electronic address: stephens@vt.edu.

Robrina Walker (R)

Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 890 Drillfield Drive, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America. Electronic address: robrina.walker@utsouthwestern.edu.

Josephine DeMarce (J)

Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 890 Drillfield Drive, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America. Electronic address: jdemarce@vt.edu.

Brian E Lozano (BE)

Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 890 Drillfield Drive, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America. Electronic address: brian.lozano@va.gov.

Jared Rowland (J)

Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 890 Drillfield Drive, 109 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States of America. Electronic address: jared.rowland@va.gov.

Denise Walker (D)

Innovative Programs Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, 909 NE 43rd St. Suite 304, Seattle, WA 98105, United States of America. Electronic address: ddwalker@u.washington.edu.

Roger A Roffman (RA)

Innovative Programs Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, 909 NE 43rd St. Suite 304, Seattle, WA 98105, United States of America. Electronic address: roffman@uw.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH