CANABIC: CANnabis and Adolescents: effect of a Brief Intervention on their Consumption – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundCannabis is the most consumed illegal substance in France. General practitioners (GPs) are the health professionals who are most consulted by adolescents. Brief intervention (BI) is a promising care initiative for the consumption of cannabis, and could be a tool for GPs in caring for adolescents who consume cannabis. The aim of the CANABIC study is to measure the impact of a BI carried out by a GP on the consumption of cannabis by adolescents of 15 to 25 years of age.MethodsA randomized clustered controlled trial, stratified over three areas (Auvergne, Languedoc-Roussillon, and Rhône - Alpes), comparing an intervention group, which carries out the BI in consultation, and a control group, which ensures routine medical care. The main assessment criterion is the consumption of cannabis by amount of joints per month, at 12 months. The amount necessary to highlight a significant difference between the two groups of 30% of consumption at 12 months is 250 patients (50 GPs, 5 patients per GP; risk α = 5%; power = 90%; intra-cluster correlation coefficient ρ = 0.2; Hawthorne effect = 15%; lost to follow-up rates for GPs = 10% and for patients = 20%). This plan is replicated for the three areas, and therefore a total of 750 patients are expected.The secondary criteria for judgment are the associated consumption of tobacco and alcohol, the perception of the consequences of consumption, and the driving of a vehicle following consumption.DiscussionResearch about BI for young cannabis users is underway. The aim of the CANABIC study is to validate a BI suited to adolescents who consume cannabis, which may be performed in the general practice. This would provide a tool for their treatment by a GP, which could be widely distributed during initial or further medical training.Trial registrationCANABIC is a randomized clustered trial (NCT01433692, registered 2011 Sept 12), PHRC funded: Clinical Research Hospital Program (Governmental Fund, Health Ministry). Date first patient randomized: March 2012.

Cannabis use in children with individualized risk profiles: Predicting the effect of universal prevention intervention

“…This implies that, as a minimum, these children must also be exposed to selective and indicated prevention interventions or, in high-risk cases, referred to clinical care (early intervention). There is a clear need for effective brief interventions for cannabis users, such as the one described by Haller, Meynard, Lefebvre, Narring, and Broers (2009), the one explored by Laporte et al (2014), and the Adolescent Cannabis Check-Up Intervention project introduced by Martin, Swift, and Copeland (2004). In the broader context of the development of preventive and treatment care for children and adolescents, such findings may provide support for some of the ongoing projects aimed at establishing dedicated healthcare services (Miovský, Čablová, Šťastná, Školníková, & Miklíková, 2014).…”

Identification and tracking of Addictovigilance signals in general practice: which interactions between the general practitioners and the French Addictovigilance Network?

“…Several such studies have been conducted in the recent years in a wide range of frameworks. They include, for examples: an ongoing study (ESUB‐MG) on the evaluation of the impact of urinary tests for the detection of narcotics in patients initiating treatment with buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone on maintenance (OST) at 6 months ; a randomized study on the brief interventions by GPs during consultations with adolescents using cannabis ; a study on benzodiazepines prescription by GPs and incentivised pay by the health insurance system ; a study on the misuse of hypnotics .…”

The influence of cannabis motives on alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use among treatment-seeking cigarette smokers

“…Coupled with tobacco and alcohol use, cannabis use has adverse effects on fetal growth and development (Cornelius et al, 2002; Richardson et al, 1995), increases risk for harder drugs (Golub and Johnson, 2001), and negatively impacts educational achievements (Centers for Disease, 1991; Martin et al, 1992). Interventions for co-occuring substance use have demonstrated favorable effects (Chariot et al, 2014; Gmel et al, 2013; Laporte et al, 2014). However, recent work has shown differential effects on health risk behavior when comparing the influence of cognitive processes related to one substance versus a different substance.…”