This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Brief intervention effective for younger, moderate cannabis users

A brief intervention for young cannabis users conducted by general practitioners does not affect use overall, but it is strongly supported for younger, nondaily users, according to findings published in Annals of Family Medicine.

“Brief intervention is a motivational interviewing technique that is characterized by its short duration. It is well-accepted by both adolescent and young adult cannabis users,” Catherine Laporte, MD, PhD, department of general practice at the University of Clermont-Ferrand in France, and colleagues wrote. “More research is ... needed to assess the efficacy of a brief intervention for the reduction of cannabis use in primary care.”

In this cluster randomized controlled trial, researchers evaluated the efficacy of a brief intervention performed by 77 general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years in France. Laporte and colleagues used an interview designed according to the FRAMES model (feedback, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) for the intervention. They measured the intervention against the control condition, which consisted of routine care.

After 1 year of continuous screening and follow-up with 261 young cannabis users, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in median number of joints smoked per month among users (17.5 vs. 17.5; P = .13). However, the researchers found that nondaily cannabis users favored the intervention compared with the control group (3 vs. 10; P = .01). Measuring the groups after 6 months revealed that the intervention was linked to a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (–33% vs. 0%; P = .01) and, among users aged younger than 18 years, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs. 20; P =.04).

“Brief intervention may be effective in slowing or preventing increases in [cannabis] use, which often occur between 15 and 25 years of age,” Laporte and colleagues wrote. “The impact on adolescents can be explained by their ambivalence in this period. The general practitioner is perceived both as a potential informer and as a benevolent authority.” – by Savannah Demko

Disclosure: Laporte reports no relevant financial disclosures.