A Review of Digital Interventions to Decrease Cannabis Use Among Patients With Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders

Whiteley, Laura; Olsen, Elizabeth; Haubrick, Kayla K; Kang, Chaerim; Vaughan, Ian P.; Brown, Larry K.

doi:10.1080/15504263.2022.2126058

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mobile health (e.g., web-based) psychosocial interventions have shown limited support for reducing cannabis use, yet are considered safe, accessible and low-cost intervention options. 9 , 10 Some interventions, both for people with psychosis and for people with substance use disorders, have also integrated post-intervention booster sessions with the aim of extending intervention benefits. These have shown promising results, such as improvements in long-term outcomes relating to psychiatric symptomatology, 11 engagement 12 , 13 and substance use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences of Young Adults With Psychosis for Cannabis-Focused Harm Reduction Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Study: Préférences des jeunes adultes souffrant de psychose pour les interventions de réduction des méfaits axées sur le cannabis : une étude transversale

Coronado-Montoya,

Abdel-Baki,

Crockford

et al. 2024

Can J Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Cannabis use is common in people with early-phase psychosis (EP) and is associated with worse treatment outcomes. Few targeted interventions for cannabis use behaviour in this population exist, most focusing on abstinence, none focusing on harm reduction. Many people with EP will not seek treatment for their cannabis use with current therapeutic options. Understanding preferences for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions may be key to improving outcomes. This study aimed to determine preferences of young adults with EP who use cannabis for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions. Methods Eighty-nine young adults across Canada with EP interested in reducing cannabis-related harms were recruited. An online questionnaire combining conventional survey methodology and two unique discrete choice experiments (DCEs) was administered. One DCE focused on attributes of core harm reduction interventions (DCE 1) and the second on attributes of boosters (DCE 2). We analysed these using mixed ranked-ordered logistic regression models. Preference questions using conventional survey methodology were analysed using summary statistics. Results Preferred characteristics for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions (DCE 1) were: shorter sessions (60 min vs. 10 min, odds ratio (OR): 0.72; P < 0.001); less frequent sessions (daily vs. monthly, OR: 0.68; P < 0.001); shorter interventions (3 months vs. 1 month, OR: 0.80; P < 0.01); technology-based interventions (vs. in-person, OR: 1.17; P < 0.05). Preferences for post-intervention boosters (DCE 2) included opting into boosters (vs. opting out, OR: 3.53; P < 0.001) and having shorter boosters (3 months vs. 1 month, OR: 0.79; P < 0.01). Nearly half of the participants preferred to reduce cannabis use as a principal intervention goal (vs. using in less harmful ways or avoiding risky situations). Conclusions Further research is required to see if technology-based harm reduction interventions for cannabis featuring these preferences translate into greater engagement and improved outcomes in EP patients.

show abstract