Richard J Macatee1, Brian J Albanese2, Sarah A Okey3, Kaveh Afshar2, Meghan Carr2, M Zachary Rosenthal4, Norman B Schmidt5, Jesse R Cougle5. 1. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: rjm0046@auburn.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 4. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prevalence of regular cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) have increased in the past two decades, but treatment-seeking is low and extant brief interventions do not target causal risk factors implicated in etiological models of addiction. Elevated distress intolerance (DI) is one risk factor that has been empirically linked with greater CUD severity and maintenance in regular users, but, to our knowledge, research has never targeted it in a brief intervention among cannabis users with CUD or at high risk. The current RCT evaluated the impact of a DI intervention (i.e., Distress Tolerance Intervention [DTI]) compared to a healthy habits control intervention (i.e., Healthy Video Control [HVC]) on DI and cannabis use outcomes. METHOD: We randomized cannabis users with high DI (N = 60) to the DTI or HVC condition and they received two computerized intervention sessions. We assessed relief cannabis craving at pre- and post-treatment; and we assessed DI, cannabis use coping motives, use-related problems, and use frequency at pre- and post-treatment as well as one- and four-month follow-ups. We assessed CUD symptoms via interviews at pre-treatment and four-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significant, durable reductions in DI and all cannabis use outcomes occurred in both conditions. Compared to the HVC condition, the DTI led to greater reductions in use frequency during the treatment period. Reductions in self-reported DI were correlated with reductions in coping motives and CUD symptoms. CONCLUSION: The DTI's impact on all outcomes was largely comparable to the control condition, though it may have utility as an adjunctive intervention.
OBJECTIVE: Prevalence of regular cannabis use and cannabis use disorder (CUD) have increased in the past two decades, but treatment-seeking is low and extant brief interventions do not target causal risk factors implicated in etiological models of addiction. Elevated distress intolerance (DI) is one risk factor that has been empirically linked with greater CUD severity and maintenance in regular users, but, to our knowledge, research has never targeted it in a brief intervention among cannabis users with CUD or at high risk. The current RCT evaluated the impact of a DI intervention (i.e., Distress Tolerance Intervention [DTI]) compared to a healthy habits control intervention (i.e., Healthy Video Control [HVC]) on DI and cannabis use outcomes. METHOD: We randomized cannabis users with high DI (N = 60) to the DTI or HVC condition and they received two computerized intervention sessions. We assessed relief cannabis craving at pre- and post-treatment; and we assessed DI, cannabis use coping motives, use-related problems, and use frequency at pre- and post-treatment as well as one- and four-month follow-ups. We assessed CUD symptoms via interviews at pre-treatment and four-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significant, durable reductions in DI and all cannabis use outcomes occurred in both conditions. Compared to the HVC condition, the DTI led to greater reductions in use frequency during the treatment period. Reductions in self-reported DI were correlated with reductions in coping motives and CUD symptoms. CONCLUSION: The DTI's impact on all outcomes was largely comparable to the control condition, though it may have utility as an adjunctive intervention.
Authors: James D Slavet; L A R Stein; Suzanne M Colby; Nancy P Barnett; Peter M Monti; Charles Golembeske; Rebecca Lebeau-Craven Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-11-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Peggy van der Pol; Nienke Liebregts; Ron de Graaf; Dirk J Korf; Wim van den Brink; Margriet van Laar Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Maciej S Buchowski; Natalie N Meade; Evonne Charboneau; Sohee Park; Mary S Dietrich; Ronald L Cowan; Peter R Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240