Joanna Jacobus1, Charles T Taylor2, Kevin M Gray3, Lindsay R Meredith3, Anna M Porter3, Irene Li2, Norma Castro2, Lindsay M Squeglia3. 1. University of California San Diego, Department of Psychiatry, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: jjacobus@ucsd.edu. 2. University of California San Diego, Department of Psychiatry, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Addiction Sciences Division, Charleston, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few effective treatment options exist for cannabis-using youth. This pilot study aimed to test Approach-Avoidance Training to reduce cannabis use with non-treatment-seeking adolescents. METHODS:Eighty cannabis-using non-treatment-seeking adolescents (average age 19) were recruited from San Diego, California and Charleston, South Carolina, and randomized to complete either six sessions of Cannabis Approach-Avoidance Task Training (CAAT-training) designed to reduce automatic approach biases for cannabis cues or CAAT-sham training. Change in two primary outcome variables was examined: 1) cannabis approach bias and 2) percent cannabis use days over study enrollment. Change in percent alcohol use days over study enrollment was explored as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A mixed models repeated measures analysis confirmed the group by time interaction effect for approach bias failed to reach statistical significance (p = .06). Significant group by time interaction effects (ps < 0.05) predicted percent days of cannabis and alcohol use over study enrollment. Participants randomized to the avoid cannabis condition (CAAT-training) reported 7% fewer days of cannabis use compared to 0% change for sham; unexpectedly, those in the avoid cannabis condition reported 10% percent more alcohol use days compared to 3% more for sham. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized cognitive bias modification paradigms may have utility in reducing adolescent cannabis use. Future work should consider developing a paradigm that addresses both cannabis and alcohol, as well as alternative computerized approaches for coping with addictive behavior in conjunction with bias modification.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Few effective treatment options exist for cannabis-using youth. This pilot study aimed to test Approach-Avoidance Training to reduce cannabis use with non-treatment-seeking adolescents. METHODS: Eighty cannabis-using non-treatment-seeking adolescents (average age 19) were recruited from San Diego, California and Charleston, South Carolina, and randomized to complete either six sessions of Cannabis Approach-Avoidance Task Training (CAAT-training) designed to reduce automatic approach biases for cannabis cues or CAAT-sham training. Change in two primary outcome variables was examined: 1) cannabis approach bias and 2) percent cannabis use days over study enrollment. Change in percent alcohol use days over study enrollment was explored as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A mixed models repeated measures analysis confirmed the group by time interaction effect for approach bias failed to reach statistical significance (p = .06). Significant group by time interaction effects (ps < 0.05) predicted percent days of cannabis and alcohol use over study enrollment. Participants randomized to the avoid cannabis condition (CAAT-training) reported 7% fewer days of cannabis use compared to 0% change for sham; unexpectedly, those in the avoid cannabis condition reported 10% percent more alcohol use days compared to 3% more for sham. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized cognitive bias modification paradigms may have utility in reducing adolescent cannabis use. Future work should consider developing a paradigm that addresses both cannabis and alcohol, as well as alternative computerized approaches for coping with addictive behavior in conjunction with bias modification.
Authors: Victoria Manning; Petra K Staiger; Kate Hall; Joshua B B Garfield; Gabriella Flaks; Daniel Leung; Laura K Hughes; Jarrad A G Lum; Dan I Lubman; Antonio Verdejo-Garcia Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Reinout W Wiers; Katrijn Houben; Javad S Fadardi; Paul van Beek; Mijke Rhemtulla; W Miles Cox Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Joanna Jacobus; Norma Castro; Lindsay M Squeglia; M J Meloy; Ty Brumback; Marilyn A Huestis; Susan F Tapert Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Hollis C Karoly; Joseph P Schacht; Joanna Jacobus; Lindsay R Meredith; Charles T Taylor; Susan F Tapert; Kevin M Gray; Lindsay M Squeglia Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Katia M Harlé; Jessica Bomyea; Andrea D Spadoni; Alan N Simmons; Charles T Taylor Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Jason J Ramirez; Christine M Lee; Isaac C Rhew; Cecilia C Olin; Devon Alisa Abdallah; Kristen P Lindgren Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.582
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: Laika D Aguinaldo; Lindsay M Squeglia; Kevin M Gray; Clarisa Coronado; Briana Lees; Rachel L Tomko; Joanna Jacobus Journal: Curr Addict Rep Date: 2019-11-15
Authors: Adina S Fischer; Susan F Tapert; Dexter Lee Louie; Alan F Schatzberg; Manpreet K Singh Journal: Curr Treat Options Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-18
Authors: Natasha E Wade; Rachel Baca; Kelly E Courtney; Connor J McCabe; M Alejandra Infante; Marilyn A Huestis; Joanna Jacobus Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 2.892