Dataset Information

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT: Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years.We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care.The general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5; P = .13), but there was a difference in favor of the intervention among nondaily users (3 vs 10; P = .01). After 6 months, the intervention was associated with a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (-33.3% vs 0%, P = .01) and, among users younger than age of 18, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs 20, P = .04).Our findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users.

SUBMITTER: Laporte C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5348230 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

Laporte Catherine C Vaillant-Roussel Hélène H Pereira Bruno B Blanc Olivier O Eschalier Bénédicte B Kinouani Shérazade S Brousse Georges G Llorca Pierre-Michel PM Vorilhon Philippe P

Annals of family medicine 20170301 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, respon ...[more]

PMID: 28289112

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany primary care patients with raised blood pressure or depression drink potentially hazardous levels of alcohol. Brief interventions (BI) to reduce alcohol consumption may improve comorbid conditions and reduce the risk of future alcohol problems. However, research has not established their effectiveness in this patient population. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of definitive trials of BI to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients with hypertension or mild to moderate depression.MethodsThirteen general practices in North East England were randomized to the intervention or control arm of one of two parallel pilot trials. Adult patients drinking excessively and diagnosed with hypertension or mild-to-moderate depression received the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) by postal survey. Consenting respondents scoring more than 7 on AUDIT (score range 0 to 40) received brief alcohol consumption advice plus an information leaflet (intervention) or an information leaflet alone (control) with follow-up at six months. Measurements included the numbers of patients eligible, recruited, and retained, and the AUDIT score and systolic/diastolic blood pressure of each patient or the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score. Acceptability was assessed via practitioner feedback and patient willingness to be screened, recruited, and retained at follow-up.ResultsIn the hypertension trial, 1709 of 33,813 adult patients (5.1%) were eligible and were surveyed. Among the eligible patients, 468 (27.4%) returned questionnaires; 166 (9.6% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 83 (4.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (50.0% of positive screens). Sixty-seven cases (80.7% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months. In the depression trial, 1,044 of 73,146 adult patients (1.4%) were eligible and surveyed. Among these eligible patients, 215 (20.6%) responded; 104 (10.0% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 29 (2.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (27.9% of positive screens). Nineteen cases (65.5% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months.ConclusionsRecruitment and retention rates were higher in the hypertension trial than in the depression trial. A full brief intervention trial appears feasible for primary care patients with hypertension who drink excessively. High AUDIT scores in the depression trial suggest the importance of alcohol intervention in this group. However, future work may require alternative screening and measurement procedures.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN89156543; registered 21 October 2013.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:Chronic headache (headache ? 15 days/month for at least 3 months) affects 2-5% of the general population. Medication overuse contributes to the problem. Medication-overuse headache (MOH) can be identified by using the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS). A "brief intervention" scheme (BI) has previously been used for detoxification from drug and alcohol overuse in other settings. Short, unstructured, individualised simple information may also be enough to detoxify a large portion of those with MOH. We have adapted the structured (BI) scheme to be used for MOH in primary care.A double-blinded cluster randomised parallel controlled trial (RCT) of BI vs. business as usual. Intervention will be performed in primary care by GPs trained in BI. Patients with MOH will be identified through a simple screening questionnaire sent to patients on the GPs lists. The BI method involves an approach for identifying patients with high likelihood of MOH using simple questions about headache frequency and the SDS score. Feedback is given to the individual patient on his/her score and consequences this might have regarding the individual risk of medication overuse contributing to their headache. Finally, advice is given regarding measures to be taken, how the patient should proceed and the possible gains for the patient. The participating patients complete a headache diary and receive a clinical interview and neurological examination by a GP experienced in headache diagnostics three months after the intervention. Primary outcomes are number of headache days and number of medication days per month at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include proportions with 25 and 50% improvement at 3 months and maintenance of improvement and quality of life after 12 months.There is a need for evidence-based and cost-effective strategies for treatment of MOH but so far no consensus has been reached regarding an optimal medication withdrawal method. To our knowledge this is the first RCT of structured non-pharmacological MOH treatment in primary care. Results may hold the potential of offering an instrument for treating MOH patients in the general population by GPs.

Project description:ImportanceEarly intervention for substance use is critical to improving adolescent outcomes. Studies have found promising results for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), but little research has examined implementation.ObjectiveTo compare SBIRT implementation in pediatric primary care among trained pediatricians, pediatricians working in coordination with embedded behavioral health care practitioners (BHCPs), and usual care (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThe study is a 2-year (November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2013), nonblinded, cluster randomized, hybrid implementation and effectiveness trial examining SBIRT implementation outcomes across 2 modalities of implementation and UC. Fifty-two pediatricians from a large general pediatrics clinic in an integrated health care system were randomized to 1 of 3 SBIRT implementation arms; patients aged 12 to 18 years were eligible.InterventionsTwo modes of SBIRT implementation, (1) pediatrician only (pediatricians trained to provide SBIRT) and (2) embedded BHCP (BHCP trained to provide SBIRT), and (3) UC.Main outcomes and measuresImplementation of SBIRT (primary outcome), which included assessments, brief interventions, and referrals to specialty substance use and mental health treatment.ResultsThe final sample included 1871 eligible patients among 47 pediatricians; health care professional characteristics did not differ across study arms. Patients in the pediatrician-only (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 10.37; 95% CI, 5.45-19.74; P < .001) and the embedded BHCP (AOR, 18.09; 95% CI, 9.69-33.77; P < .001) arms had higher odds of receiving brief interventions compared with patients in the UC arm. Patients in the embedded BHCP arm were more likely to receive brief interventions compared with those in the pediatrician-only arm (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.31; P < .001). The embedded BHCP arm had lower odds of receiving a referral compared with the pediatrician-only (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78; P < .001) and UC (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .006) arms; odds of referrals did not differ between the pediatrician-only and UC arms.Conclusions and relevanceThe intervention arms had better screening, assessment, and brief intervention rates than the UC arm. Patients in the pediatrician-only and UC arms had higher odds of being referred to specialty treatment than those in the embedded BHCP arm, suggesting lingering barriers to having pediatricians fully address substance use in primary care. Findings also highlight age and ethnic groups less likely to receive these important services.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02408952.

Project description:Aims: Chronic cannabis users show impairments on laboratory measures of decision making which reflect risk factors for initiation and continued use of cannabis. However, the differential sensitivity of these tasks to cannabis use has not been established. Moreover, studies to date have often lacked assessment of psychiatric histories and use of other illicit substances, both of which may influence decision making outcomes. The current study aimed to address these limitations by (1) including multiple types of decision making tasks, (2) implementing the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task, a measure of decision making under uncertainty, for the first time in cannabis users, (3) including young adult cannabis users with no other psychiatric disorders, and (4) conducting urinalysis to exclude users of other illicit drugs. Methods: Thirty-three current cannabis users without comorbid psychiatric disorders and 35 cannabis non-users completed behavioral measures of decision-making (Iowa Gambling Task), reward discounting (Delay Discounting Task), choice-outcome learning (the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task) and a questionnaire assessment of impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale). Results: Relative to non-users, cannabis users demonstrated greater preference for immediate vs. delayed rewards on the Delay Discounting Task, made fewer advantageous decisions on the Iowa Gambling Task, and endorsed greater impulsivity on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale scales. Cannabis users and non-users showed comparable performance on the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task. Frequency of past-month cannabis use and total years of use did not predict decision making or impulsivity. Conclusions: Young adult cannabis users demonstrated higher discounting rates and impairments in learning cost-benefit contingencies, while reversal learning was unaffected. Self-reported impulsivity was elevated as well. None of these measures correlated with current or lifetime estimates of cannabis use, arguing against a dose-relationship. Interventions that target improvement in affected components of decision making may be helpful in reducing cannabis use and relapse.

Dataset Information

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

Publications

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets