Nikolaos Boumparis1, Lisa Loheide-Niesmann2, Matthijs Blankers3, David D Ebert4, Dirk Korf5, Michael P Schaub6, Renske Spijkerman7, Robert J Tait8, Heleen Riper9. 1. Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: n.boumparis@vu.nl. 2. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Research, Arkin Mental Health Care, Klaprozenweg 111, 1033 NN Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Academic Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Trimbos Institute - Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521 VS Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Friedrich-Alexander University Nuremberg-Erlangen, Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Schlossplatz 4, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. 5. Bonger Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030, 1000 BA Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Swiss Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction ISGF, University of Zurich, Konradstrasse 32, 8031 Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Parnassia Addiction Research Centre (PARC), Brijder Addiction Care, PO Box 53002, 2505 AA The Hague, the Netherlands. 8. National Drug Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, 6845, Australia. 9. Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Jason P Connor; Daniel Stjepanović; Bernard Le Foll; Eva Hoch; Alan J Budney; Wayne D Hall Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Celia C Kamath; Sydney S Kelpin; Christi A Patten; Teresa A Rummans; Hilal Maradit Kremers; Tyler S Oesterle; Mark D Williams; Scott A Breitinger Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 11.104
Authors: Joachim Ahlers; Christian Baumgartner; Mareike Augsburger; Andreas Wenger; Doris Malischnig; Nikolaos Boumparis; Thomas Berger; Lars Stark; David D Ebert; Severin Haug; Michael P Schaub Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Anna Odone; Stefan Buttigieg; Walter Ricciardi; Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat; Anthony Staines Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Michael Patrick Schaub; Anne H Berman; Hugo López Pelayo; Nikolaos Boumparis; Zarnie Khadjesari; Matthijs Blankers; Antoni Gual; Heleen Riper; Lodewijk Pas Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christian Rauschenberg; Anita Schick; Dusan Hirjak; Andreas Seidler; Isabell Paetzold; Christian Apfelbacher; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Ulrich Reininghaus Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cheryl L Currie; Richard Larouche; M Lauren Voss; Maegan Trottier; Rae Spiwak; Erin Higa; David R Scott; Treena Tallow Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.428