Brief Drug Interventions Delivered in General Medical Settings: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cannabis Use Outcomes.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lauren M Berny, Lindsey M Nichols, Maria L Schweer-Collins, Emily E Tanner-Smith
{"title":"Brief Drug Interventions Delivered in General Medical Settings: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cannabis Use Outcomes.","authors":"Lauren M Berny, Lindsey M Nichols, Maria L Schweer-Collins, Emily E Tanner-Smith","doi":"10.1007/s11121-025-01826-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is consistent evidence that brief interventions can be effective in preventing and reducing alcohol use, but support for their effects on illicit drug use is more limited. This meta-analysis expands prior research by testing whether brief drug interventions (BDIs) delivered in general medical settings reduce cannabis consumption and severity across post-intervention follow-up periods and explores potential heterogeneity in these effects. Findings from 17 randomized controlled trials were synthesized to compare short- and long-term cannabis use outcomes between intervention and control groups. Mixed effects meta-regression models were estimated to examine variability in effects across four intervention characteristics: booster session delivery, delivery setting, intervention target, and target population. Sensitivity tests were also conducted for both main effects and moderation analyses. There was no evidence that BDIs yielded significant short-term reductions in cannabis use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.90, 1.62]), consumption level (g = 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.09]), or severity (g = 0.13, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.33]). Similarly, there was no evidence of effects on long-term cannabis use (OR = 1.19, 95% CI [0.73, 1.86]) or consumption level (g = 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.05, 0.12]). Although the primary analyses did not provide evidence of effect moderation, sensitivity tests revealed BDIs delivered in emergency departments evidenced small but significant reductions in long-term cannabis consumption levels. While these findings do not provide support for the overall effectiveness of BDIs on cannabis consumption or severity in general medical settings, they offer suggestive evidence that BDIs may perform more favorably when delivered in emergency departments. Thus, high-quality trials evaluating the effects of BDIs in emergency departments are needed. Given the importance of preventing adverse health outcomes and consequences of cannabis use, more research is needed to improve and evaluate BDI outcomes. Further, developing and testing alternative prevention and intervention approaches are essential to comprehensively address cannabis use.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01826-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is consistent evidence that brief interventions can be effective in preventing and reducing alcohol use, but support for their effects on illicit drug use is more limited. This meta-analysis expands prior research by testing whether brief drug interventions (BDIs) delivered in general medical settings reduce cannabis consumption and severity across post-intervention follow-up periods and explores potential heterogeneity in these effects. Findings from 17 randomized controlled trials were synthesized to compare short- and long-term cannabis use outcomes between intervention and control groups. Mixed effects meta-regression models were estimated to examine variability in effects across four intervention characteristics: booster session delivery, delivery setting, intervention target, and target population. Sensitivity tests were also conducted for both main effects and moderation analyses. There was no evidence that BDIs yielded significant short-term reductions in cannabis use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.90, 1.62]), consumption level (g = 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.09]), or severity (g = 0.13, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.33]). Similarly, there was no evidence of effects on long-term cannabis use (OR = 1.19, 95% CI [0.73, 1.86]) or consumption level (g = 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.05, 0.12]). Although the primary analyses did not provide evidence of effect moderation, sensitivity tests revealed BDIs delivered in emergency departments evidenced small but significant reductions in long-term cannabis consumption levels. While these findings do not provide support for the overall effectiveness of BDIs on cannabis consumption or severity in general medical settings, they offer suggestive evidence that BDIs may perform more favorably when delivered in emergency departments. Thus, high-quality trials evaluating the effects of BDIs in emergency departments are needed. Given the importance of preventing adverse health outcomes and consequences of cannabis use, more research is needed to improve and evaluate BDI outcomes. Further, developing and testing alternative prevention and intervention approaches are essential to comprehensively address cannabis use.

在一般医疗环境中提供的简短药物干预:大麻使用结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
有一致的证据表明,短期干预可以有效地预防和减少酒精使用,但对其对非法药物使用的影响的支持更为有限。本荟萃分析通过测试在一般医疗环境中提供的短暂药物干预(BDIs)是否在干预后随访期间减少大麻消费和严重程度,扩展了先前的研究,并探讨了这些影响的潜在异质性。综合17项随机对照试验的结果,比较干预组和对照组的短期和长期大麻使用结果。估计混合效应元回归模型来检查四个干预特征的效果变异性:加强期交付、交付环境、干预目标和目标人群。对主效应和适度分析也进行了敏感性试验。没有证据表明bdi在短期内显著降低了大麻的使用(OR = 1.20, 95% CI[0.90, 1.62])、消费水平(g = 0.01, 95% CI[- 0.07, 0.09])或严重程度(g = 0.13, 95% CI[- 0.07, 0.33])。同样,没有证据表明对长期大麻使用(OR = 1.19, 95% CI[0.73, 1.86])或消费水平(g = 0.04, 95% CI[- 0.05, 0.12])有影响。虽然初步分析没有提供效果缓和的证据,但敏感性测试显示,在急诊科提供的bdi证明了长期大麻消费水平虽小但显著降低。虽然这些发现并未支持bdi在一般医疗环境中对大麻消费或严重程度的总体有效性,但它们提供了暗含性证据,表明bdi在急诊科提供时可能效果更好。因此,需要高质量的试验来评估bdi在急诊科的效果。鉴于预防大麻使用的不良健康后果和后果的重要性,需要进行更多的研究,以改善和评估BDI的结果。此外,制定和试验替代预防和干预办法对于全面解决大麻使用问题至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信