Polysubstance Use in Cannabis Users Referred for Treatment: Drug Use Profiles, Psychiatric Comorbidity and Cannabis-Related Beliefs

Connor, Jason P.; Gullo, Matthew J.; Chan, Gary; Young, Ross McD.; Hall, Wayne; Feeney, Gerald F.X.

doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00079

Cited by 76 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rare use frequency of the other substances rather indicates a pattern of experimentation, where future repeated use may not be anticipated. This pattern is consistent with the typical profile of PSU [8]. Nicotine use was the most frequently co-used substance but did not directly relate to any outcome.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…A latent class analysis of 1,089 cannabis users from a community sample found that other illegal substance use occurred more often in the group with cannabis-related problems than in the nonproblematic users [15]. In a sample of 826 cannabis users referred for treatment, the highest severity of cannabis dependence, comorbid psychopathology, and dysfunctional cannabis cognitions was reported among those who additionally used a wide range of other substances; these other substances most often included amphetamines, and infrequently included tranquilizers and opiates [8]. Therefore, PSU and especially illegal substance use is associated with more severe CU-related problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cannabis users often also consume alcohol and nicotine, and a minority of them uses further illegal substances [7, 8]. Although there is considerable variation by country and region, the most frequent types of PSU among more than 70,000 15- to 16-year-old students from 22 European countries were a combination of alcohol and nicotine (type 1, 73%), followed by the combination of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis (type 2, 20%) and type 2 plus at least one illegal substance (type 3, 3.5%) [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Polysubstance use (PSU) is common among patients with cannabis use (CU) and is related to more severe CU problems. However, it is unclear how PSU predicts CU treatment outcomes beyond CU patterns. We examined the frequency, amount, and class of additionally used substances as predictors for primary and secondary outcomes. Methods: We conducted crude and adjusted regression analyses for PSU variables as predictors of remission, abstinence, reduction, and secondary outcomes in 166 help-seeking patients from a randomized clinical trial of CANDIS, a cognitive behavioral treatment program. Results: Patients with recent illegal PSU experienced more difficulties in reducing their CU (B = –1.22, p < 0.001). In contrast, remission rates were slightly higher in patients with a wide variety of last-year-PSU (RD = 0.04, p < 0.001). Amphetamine use predicted poorer outcomes regarding CU-related problems (B = –4.22, p = 0.019), and the use of opiates, inhalants, and dissociative substances predicted poorer physical health outcomes (B = –0.62, p = 0.009; B = –0.96, p = 0.039; B = –1.18, p = 0.007). Conclusions: CU treatment is also effective for patients with moderate PSU. However, treatment effects may be enhanced by addressing specific PSU characteristics as part of a modularized program.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La autoeficacia es una variable que, contradictoriamente, en estudios previos ha mostrado incrementos después de intervenciones (Blevins, Stephens, Walker, & Roffman, 2014;Connor et al, 2013;Hser, 2007;Wong & Longshore, 2008;Worley et al, 2014) y estabilidad que indica que la variable no es predictora del tiempo en abstinencia (Fiorentine & Hillhouse, 2003;Stein, Zane, & Grella, 2012). Los participantes de este estudio se mostraron con mayor autoeficacia en las evaluaciones post, sin interacción con el tipo de tratamiento que se brindó.…”

Section: Discusión Y Conclusionesunclassified

Efecto del tratamiento sobre el descuento temporal y probabilístico en participantes con trastorno por uso de crack

Mejı́a¹,

Chainé²,

Nieto³

2016

RIIAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: several studies have shown that individuals with dependence on psychoactive drugs show a steeply delay discounting with monetary rewards in contrast to non-consumers. This finding is clinically useful as a behavioral trait likely to be modified by psychological treatments. Objective: this study evaluated changes pre-post measures of delay and probability discounting, somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, psychosis and self-efficacy in participants with crack use disorder severe who received one of two types of psychological treatment. Method: we worked with ninety two participants, 31 for each treatment and 30 in the control group. We evaluated the three groups so pre-post, the post was held after 40 days for the three groups, and during that time the cocaine users received one of the two forms of treatments, except control who only received post evaluation. Results: the results showed that the pre-post evaluation with probability and delay discounting procedures did not change in any of the three groups. Suggesting that the discounting is not sensitive to identify short-term changes as result from psychological interventions. In contrast both treatment modalities increased self-efficacy, and reduced symptoms of somatization, anxiety, depression and psychosis. Not a main effect for treatment type was found. Discussion and conclusions: this study showed the stability of discounting measures with psychological treatment. While other variables they were subject to change due to the treatment, so the clinical utility of the discounting as a variable indicating the success of the intervention should be further explored in future research.

show abstract

“…The early onset, heavy cannabis and polydrug use group in this study were found to experience the highest level of use-related problems, followed by the late-heavy-polydrug group. Similarly, Connor et al (11) report that, in a sample of adult cannabis users referred for treatment, those who engaged in polydrug use were more likely to be cannabis dependent and experiencing higher levels of comorbid psychopathology, than individuals who used cannabis, tobacco, and/or alcohol. Healey et al (12) also focused on a treatment sample, finding that both cannabis users and their clinicians reported difficulty in establishing a therapeutic bond.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clearing the smokescreen: The current evidence on cannabis use

2015

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions regarding the legal status of cannabis have long been framed (for the public at least) with reference to the perceived health risks and harms associated with use. Yet, drug policy and legislation relating to the use of cannabis are rarely based on the scientific evidence of the known risks and harms. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, with the politicization of cannabis use, where ideology and moralizing are given precedence over the science, being one. Thus, we begin this research topic with Aggarwal (1) discussion of how such politicization has contributed to the current smokescreen that is obscuring our understanding of cannabis, including the impact it has on the ability of researchers to collect and disseminate accurate information about the effects of cannabis use.The capacity of policy makers and legislators to develop evidence-based cannabis policies and laws is also contingent on researchers explaining the existing evidence, disseminating new research findings, and collaborating with relevant people, agencies, and government departments to improve the premises on which they base their policies and legislation. Roffman (2), who took this path through his involvement in the development of the legislation to legalize cannabis use in Washington State, provides an insider's view of the processes and deliberations. While we will have to wait for the evaluation of this carefully designed model for regulating cannabis use, the following two articles provide some insight into patterns of cannabis use in contexts were consumption is relatively normalized. There are many parallels evident in the findings of Mostaghim and Hathaway (3) qualitative exploration of cannabis use among Canadian university students and Liebregts et al. (4) prospective investigation of cannabis use by young adults transitioning from university to work in The Netherlands. Of particular note are the ways in which the participants' self-identity, including priorities, roles, and responsibilities, act as constraints to their use, and the clear demarcations drawn between leisure and work.A major consideration, discussed by Roffman (2), was the risk that legalization of cannabis might spark an increase in usage, which could, in turn, result in higher incidence and prevalence of cannabis-related harms, particularly if there was an increase in use by adolescents. The evidence underpinning concerns of adverse impacts resulting from early onset cannabis use is reviewed by Chadwick et al. (5), who report that adolescent users with genetic vulnerabilities are at increased risk of experiencing motivational, affective, and psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. The association between cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia is comprehensively reviewed by Radhakrishnan et al. (6), who conclude that, while, cannabis may be a component cause in the development of psychosis, this association is moderated by family history of psychoses, genetic factors, childhood trauma/abuse, and age at onset of use. The importance of differentiating...

show abstract

Polysubstance Use in Cannabis Users Referred for Treatment: Drug Use Profiles, Psychiatric Comorbidity and Cannabis-Related Beliefs

Cited by 76 publications

References 43 publications

Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use

Is Cannabis Use Treatment Also Indicated for Patients with Low to Moderate Polysubstance Use

Efecto del tratamiento sobre el descuento temporal y probabilístico en participantes con trastorno por uso de crack

Clearing the smokescreen: The current evidence on cannabis use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About