Historique
Article de Périodique
Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2019)
Auteur(s) :
N. BOUMPARIS ;
L. LOHEIDE-NIESMANN ;
M. BLANKERS ;
D. D. EBERT ;
D. KORF ;
M. P. SCHAUB ;
R. SPIJKERMAN ;
R. J. TAIT ;
H. RIPER
Article en page(s) :
82-94
Sous-type de document :
Méta-analyse / Meta-analysis ; Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Thésaurus mots-clés
CANNABIS
;
PREVENTION
;
INTERVENTION
;
INTERNET
;
EFFICACITE
;
METHODE
;
TRAITEMENT
;
COMPARAISON
;
PROGRAMME
Résumé :
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 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.
Highlights:
Digital prevention and treatment interventions reduce Cannabis use at post-treatment.
Treatment interventions seem to produce clinically negligible effects.
Prevention interventions produce effects that are maintained for up to 12 months.
Necessity to establish a core outcome set for the reporting of Cannabis use outcomes.
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 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.
Highlights:
Digital prevention and treatment interventions reduce Cannabis use at post-treatment.
Treatment interventions seem to produce clinically negligible effects.
Prevention interventions produce effects that are maintained for up to 12 months.
Necessity to establish a core outcome set for the reporting of Cannabis use outcomes.
Affiliation :
Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands