2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.05.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Marijuana eCHECKUPTO GO: Effects of a personalized feedback plus protective behavioral strategies intervention for heavy marijuana-using college students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
51
0
12

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
51
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…Interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI), and personalized normative feedback (PNF) have been shown to effectively reduce cannabis use and associated problems (Copeland et al 2001;Davis et al 2015;Hoch et al 2014;Martin and Copeland 2008;Riggs et al 2018), but the majority of users do not seek professional treatment (Agosti and Levin 2004;Cunningham 2000;Stinson et al 2006). Commonly reported barriers to seeking treatment include limited access and perceived stigma (Gates et al 2012;van der Pol et al 2013), with many cannabis users preferring self-reliant interventions and informal help to assist with quitting (e.g., van der Pol et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI), and personalized normative feedback (PNF) have been shown to effectively reduce cannabis use and associated problems (Copeland et al 2001;Davis et al 2015;Hoch et al 2014;Martin and Copeland 2008;Riggs et al 2018), but the majority of users do not seek professional treatment (Agosti and Levin 2004;Cunningham 2000;Stinson et al 2006). Commonly reported barriers to seeking treatment include limited access and perceived stigma (Gates et al 2012;van der Pol et al 2013), with many cannabis users preferring self-reliant interventions and informal help to assist with quitting (e.g., van der Pol et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though our eligibility targeted more regular users, the number of participants who met criteria for CUD should be alarming to university officials and illustrates a need to increase awareness and education to incoming university students. Though a host of prevention and harm reduction programs exist (e.g., Marijuana E-CHECKUP TO GO; Riggs et al, 2018) and are often delivered during orientation, the intensity may not be enough for those with underlying susceptibility to a substance use disorder. Past work has shown that many adolescents and young adults who use marijuana heavily are not motivated to quit despite experiencing negative consequences related to their use (Fernández-Artamendi et al, 2013).…”
Section: (111%)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the limited research that has focused on harm reduction, normative correction was used to calculate sample size. Based on previous research20 35 a medium effect (Cohen’s f =0.265) size was used yielding a minimum sample of n = 32 past 30-day users are necessary to capture effects. To achieve sufficient representation of students who report recent cannabis use, we are aiming to recruit up to a total of 500 participants.…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Open access contrasted with norms from respective demographic groups Descriptive norms refer to an individual's perceptions regarding the consumption of substances by others (eg, asking individuals to estimate the percentage of students who consumed cannabis in the past month 20 ). It has been demonstrated that Canadian postsecondary students consistently overestimate the frequency of cannabis consumption among the student body.…”
Section: Brief Interventions For Cannabismentioning
confidence: 99%