Catherine Laporte1,2, Hélène Vaillant-Roussel3,4, Bruno Pereira5, Olivier Blanc3,6, Bénédicte Eschalier3, Shérazade Kinouani7, Georges Brousse2,6, Pierre-Michel Llorca2,6, Philippe Vorilhon3,8. 1. Univ Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France Catherine.laporte@udamail.fr. 2. Univ Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, EA7280, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France. 3. Univ Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France. 4. CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clinical Pharmacology Departement - Clinical Investigation Centre (Inserm CIC 501), Clermont-Ferrand, F-63003, France. 5. CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Office for Clinical research and Innovation, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63003, France. 6. CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Psychiatry B, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63003, France. 7. Univ Bordeaux, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Bordeaux, F-33076, France. 8. Univ Clermont 1, UFR Medecine, EA4681, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years. METHODS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care. RESULTS: The general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5; P = .13), but there was a difference in favor of the intervention among nondaily users (3 vs 10; P = .01). After 6 months, the intervention was associated with a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (-33.3% vs 0%, P = .01) and, among users younger than age of 18, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs 20, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years. METHODS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care. RESULTS: The general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5; P = .13), but there was a difference in favor of the intervention among nondaily users (3 vs 10; P = .01). After 6 months, the intervention was associated with a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (-33.3% vs 0%, P = .01) and, among users younger than age of 18, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs 20, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users.
Authors: Robert L Williams; Kurt Stange; William R Phillips; Louise S Acheson; Bijal Balasubramanian; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Robert L Ferrer; James M Gill Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Theresa H M Moore; Stanley Zammit; Anne Lingford-Hughes; Thomas R E Barnes; Peter B Jones; Margaret Burke; Glyn Lewis Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mirrian Hilbink; Gerlienke Voerman; Ivonne van Beurden; Brenda Penninx; Miranda Laurant Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Anthony Rodriguez; Michael S Dunbar; Caislin L Firth; Joan S Tucker; Rachana Seelam; Eric R Pedersen; Jordan P Davis Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2020-10-07
Authors: Elizabeth J D'Amico; Anthony Rodriguez; Joan S Tucker; Michael S Dunbar; Eric R Pedersen; Rachana Seelam Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Michael D Stein; Celeste M Caviness; Emily F Morse; Kristin R Grimone; Daniel Audet; Debra S Herman; Ethan Moitra; Bradley J Anderson Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Matthew C Fadus; Lindsay M Squeglia; Emilio A Valadez; Rachel L Tomko; Brittany E Bryant; Kevin M Gray Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Anna Letícia Moraes Alves; Izadora Karina Silva; Pedro Henrique Paula Lemos; Victor Lomachinsky Torres; Eric Crevanzi Arraes; Pedro Augusto Sampaio Rocha-Filho Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 2.396
Authors: Catherine Laporte; Céline Lambert; Bruno Pereira; Olivier Blanc; Nicolas Authier; David Balayssac; Georges Brousse; Philippe Vorilhon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240