Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40318070›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Effectiveness and safety of psychosocial interventions for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Monika Halicka, Thomas L Parkhouse, Katie Webster, Francesca Spiga, Lindsey A Hines, Tom P Freeman, Sabina Sanghera, Sarah Dawson, Craig Paterson, Jelena Savović and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Monika HalickaPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6283-9352
Thomas L ParkhousePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-5376
Katie WebsterPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7997-4133
Francesca SpigaPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6904-2247
Lindsey A HinesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5052-3182
Tom P FreemanAddiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5667-507X
Sabina SangheraPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8387-3103
Sarah DawsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6682-063X
Craig PatersonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3125-9712
Jelena SavovićPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-0578
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-2514
Deborah M CaldwellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8014-7480

Funding

NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme NIHR167862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (CUD).

methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; PROSPERO protocol CRD42024553382) of psychosocial interventions for CUD lasting >4 sessions, delivered synchronously, to individuals with CUD aged ≥16 years, in inpatient, outpatient or community-based settings. We searched databases (MEDLINE/PsycInfo/Cochrane CENTRAL) to 12 June 2024. We assessed results using Risk of Bias 2 and conducted pairwise meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were continuous- and point-abstinence and withdrawal intensity at the end of treatment, treatment completion and adverse events.

resultsWe included 22 RCTs (3304 participants). Relative to an inactive/non-specific comparator, cognitive-behavioural therapy with motivation enhancement (MET-CBT) increased point abstinence [odds ratio (OR) = 18.27; 95% confidence interval (9.00-37.07)] and continuous abstinence [OR = 2.72; (1.20-6.19)], but reduced treatment completion [OR = 0.53; (0.35-0.85)]. Dialectical behavioural/acceptance and commitment therapy increased point abstinence versus inactive/non-specific comparator [OR = 4.34; (1.74-10.80)]. The effect of MET-CBT plus affect management versus MET-CBT on point abstinence was OR = 7.85 (0.38-163.52). The effect of MET-CBT plus abstinence-based contingency management versus MET-CBT on point abstinence was OR = 3.78 (0.83-17.25), and on continuous abstinence OR = 1.81 (0.61-5.41). For MET-CBT plus abstinence-contingency management versus MET-CBT plus attendance-contingency management, the effect on point abstinence was OR = 1.61 (0.72-3.60), and on continuous abstinence OR = 2.04 (0.75-5.58). The effect of community reinforcement on point abstinence was OR = 0.29 (0.04-1.90) versus MET-CBT, and on continuous abstinence OR = 47.36 (16.00-140.21) versus non-specific comparator. Interventions other than MET-CBT may not affect treatment completion. No adverse events were reported. No study reported withdrawal intensity. Two economic evaluations reported higher costs for more complex interventions and contingency management.

conclusionsCognitive-behavioural therapy with motivation enhancement and dialectical behavioural/acceptance and commitment therapy may increase abstinence among people with cannabis use disorder relative to an inactive/non-specific comparator. The conclusions remain tentative due to low- to very low-certainty evidence and the small number of studies.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyMarijuana AbusePsychosocial InterventionCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMotivationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomeadolescentadultcannabishumansmeta‐analysispsychosocial interventionrandomized controlled trialssubstance‐related disorderssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40318070
PMCPMC12529236

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.