Marijuana is the 2nd most commonly used psychoactive substance (behind alcohol, not including nicotine) both nationally & internationally.
Marijuana is the 2nd most commonly used psychoactive substance (behind alcohol, not including nicotine) both nationally & internationally.
l
There are several evidence based psychosocial treatments for cannabis use disorder (see here for a rigorous study that tested several treatments for adolescents). However, it is likely that, similar to several other substances, many individuals with cannabis use disorder will resolve their problems without formal treatment or mutual-help groups.
Also, like other substances, many will attempt to resolve their problems by cutting back rather than abstaining from cannabis entirely, at least initially.
Authors assessed and interviewed 119 adults via media advertisements in Calgary, Canada with a lifetime, but not past year cannabis use disorder – based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview – meaning participants were in sustained remission. They compared the sample on several demographic and clinical variables, on whether they now moderate or completely abstain from cannabis, and whether they sought treatment/mutual-help or were non treatment-seeking (sometimes referred to as “natural” recovery) in order to help them make this change.
They also used qualitative analyses to examine whether participants’ reasons for changing their marijuana use, strategies to help them change their marijuana use, and strategies to help them maintain the change were different as a function of moderation/abstinence and treatment/natural recovery.
Of the 119 participants, 68 were abstainers and 51 were moderators, while 53 attended treatment and 66 did not attend treatment. Regarding demographics, the sample was 37 years old,on average, and made $43,000 per year, while 70% were male, 80% were Caucasian and, in terms of education, 85% had at least high school diploma. The only demographic difference reported was that abstainers were significantly more likely to be older than moderators.
NOTABLY FROM THE STUDY:
There were no significant differences for abstainers and moderators or for treatment seekers and non treatment seekers for these multiple reasons, one of those, a less commonly endorsed reason, realization of harm (26%), was significantly more common among abstainers relative to moderators.
Regarding strategies to help participants cut down or quit, the top three were:
Finally, regarding strategies to help them maintain their change in marijuana use, individuals also used thinking strategies and changes in their social network, but also in the top three were hobbies and other distracting activities. This strategy was endorsed significantly more often among moderators compared to abstainers.
Regarding the identification of these reasons and strategies from participants’ open-ended written responses, there was a high degree of agreement between research staff who coded the participant responses, suggesting these responses were relatively clear and easy to identify.
Also important to note is that, relative to abstainers, moderators were significantly more likely to have close friends that used cannabis weekly or more (74% vs. 46%) and were less likely to perceive recreational cannabis use and medicinal cannabis use as harmful to society.
This study that used both quantitative and qualitative analyses (i.e., a mixed methods approach) was among the first to examine differences between individuals in remission from cannabis use disorder along both abstinence/moderation and treatment/non-treatment dimensions, simultaneously.
The findings provide knowledge on different pathways into cannabis use disorder remission and identify similarities and differences between these various forms of recovery. Like remission/recovery from alcohol use disorders, Stea et al.’s analyses suggest that, irrespective of the pathway and nature of one’s remission, individuals in recovery endorse using thinking strategies, changes in one’s social circle, and consciously avoiding risky places and situations to help them achieve this goal.
Also similar to individuals with alcohol and other substance use disorders, individuals with more severe problems are more likely to seek abstinence rather than moderation, and to seek formal help in their efforts to cut down or quit.
It is likely that cannabis use severity was associated with greater suffering which helped motivate individuals to avoid cannabis entirely (so as to avoid any risks of even a little use) or to seek formal help (due to failing to meet their goal on their own and thus increasing the likelihood of being able to successfully meet their cannabis goal).
Cannabis or marijuana use has also been associated with:
For individuals with cannabis use disorder that are less motivated for change, this study suggests that identifying reasons that cannabis use might be incompatible with their goals and values, and also identifying the mental health consequences of use, might be helpful for evoking motivation to change.
For those that are motivated to change, it may help to work with them on thinking strategies (such as costs and benefits), on identifying ways to increase time spent with non users and decrease time spent with users (such as mutual-help groups and other settings where health is emphasized such as the gym), and on helping identify risky places and situations to avoid and ways to avoid them (i.e., through less risky hobbies and activities).
Authors suggest that their findings may indicate an approach where individuals with less severe problems can be helped through less intensive methods like online self-management resources; those with more severe problems may benefit most from intervention, sometimes referred to as “stepped care” (see here for a discussion of this issue as related to alcohol). This is an issue that can be studied in future investigations.
In addition, longitudinal research shows that moderation may be a significantly riskier remission pathway than abstinence, with greater likelihood of relapse (see here). It is likely that this is also true for cannabis but requires further investigation.
Stea, J. N., Yakovenko, I., & Hodgins, D. C. (2015). Recovery from cannabis use disorders: Abstinence versus moderation and treatment-assisted recovery versus natural recovery. Psychol Addict Behav, 29(3), 522-531. doi:10.1037/adb0000097
l
There are several evidence based psychosocial treatments for cannabis use disorder (see here for a rigorous study that tested several treatments for adolescents). However, it is likely that, similar to several other substances, many individuals with cannabis use disorder will resolve their problems without formal treatment or mutual-help groups.
Also, like other substances, many will attempt to resolve their problems by cutting back rather than abstaining from cannabis entirely, at least initially.
Authors assessed and interviewed 119 adults via media advertisements in Calgary, Canada with a lifetime, but not past year cannabis use disorder – based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview – meaning participants were in sustained remission. They compared the sample on several demographic and clinical variables, on whether they now moderate or completely abstain from cannabis, and whether they sought treatment/mutual-help or were non treatment-seeking (sometimes referred to as “natural” recovery) in order to help them make this change.
They also used qualitative analyses to examine whether participants’ reasons for changing their marijuana use, strategies to help them change their marijuana use, and strategies to help them maintain the change were different as a function of moderation/abstinence and treatment/natural recovery.
Of the 119 participants, 68 were abstainers and 51 were moderators, while 53 attended treatment and 66 did not attend treatment. Regarding demographics, the sample was 37 years old,on average, and made $43,000 per year, while 70% were male, 80% were Caucasian and, in terms of education, 85% had at least high school diploma. The only demographic difference reported was that abstainers were significantly more likely to be older than moderators.
NOTABLY FROM THE STUDY:
There were no significant differences for abstainers and moderators or for treatment seekers and non treatment seekers for these multiple reasons, one of those, a less commonly endorsed reason, realization of harm (26%), was significantly more common among abstainers relative to moderators.
Regarding strategies to help participants cut down or quit, the top three were:
Finally, regarding strategies to help them maintain their change in marijuana use, individuals also used thinking strategies and changes in their social network, but also in the top three were hobbies and other distracting activities. This strategy was endorsed significantly more often among moderators compared to abstainers.
Regarding the identification of these reasons and strategies from participants’ open-ended written responses, there was a high degree of agreement between research staff who coded the participant responses, suggesting these responses were relatively clear and easy to identify.
Also important to note is that, relative to abstainers, moderators were significantly more likely to have close friends that used cannabis weekly or more (74% vs. 46%) and were less likely to perceive recreational cannabis use and medicinal cannabis use as harmful to society.
This study that used both quantitative and qualitative analyses (i.e., a mixed methods approach) was among the first to examine differences between individuals in remission from cannabis use disorder along both abstinence/moderation and treatment/non-treatment dimensions, simultaneously.
The findings provide knowledge on different pathways into cannabis use disorder remission and identify similarities and differences between these various forms of recovery. Like remission/recovery from alcohol use disorders, Stea et al.’s analyses suggest that, irrespective of the pathway and nature of one’s remission, individuals in recovery endorse using thinking strategies, changes in one’s social circle, and consciously avoiding risky places and situations to help them achieve this goal.
Also similar to individuals with alcohol and other substance use disorders, individuals with more severe problems are more likely to seek abstinence rather than moderation, and to seek formal help in their efforts to cut down or quit.
It is likely that cannabis use severity was associated with greater suffering which helped motivate individuals to avoid cannabis entirely (so as to avoid any risks of even a little use) or to seek formal help (due to failing to meet their goal on their own and thus increasing the likelihood of being able to successfully meet their cannabis goal).
Cannabis or marijuana use has also been associated with:
For individuals with cannabis use disorder that are less motivated for change, this study suggests that identifying reasons that cannabis use might be incompatible with their goals and values, and also identifying the mental health consequences of use, might be helpful for evoking motivation to change.
For those that are motivated to change, it may help to work with them on thinking strategies (such as costs and benefits), on identifying ways to increase time spent with non users and decrease time spent with users (such as mutual-help groups and other settings where health is emphasized such as the gym), and on helping identify risky places and situations to avoid and ways to avoid them (i.e., through less risky hobbies and activities).
Authors suggest that their findings may indicate an approach where individuals with less severe problems can be helped through less intensive methods like online self-management resources; those with more severe problems may benefit most from intervention, sometimes referred to as “stepped care” (see here for a discussion of this issue as related to alcohol). This is an issue that can be studied in future investigations.
In addition, longitudinal research shows that moderation may be a significantly riskier remission pathway than abstinence, with greater likelihood of relapse (see here). It is likely that this is also true for cannabis but requires further investigation.
Stea, J. N., Yakovenko, I., & Hodgins, D. C. (2015). Recovery from cannabis use disorders: Abstinence versus moderation and treatment-assisted recovery versus natural recovery. Psychol Addict Behav, 29(3), 522-531. doi:10.1037/adb0000097
l
There are several evidence based psychosocial treatments for cannabis use disorder (see here for a rigorous study that tested several treatments for adolescents). However, it is likely that, similar to several other substances, many individuals with cannabis use disorder will resolve their problems without formal treatment or mutual-help groups.
Also, like other substances, many will attempt to resolve their problems by cutting back rather than abstaining from cannabis entirely, at least initially.
Authors assessed and interviewed 119 adults via media advertisements in Calgary, Canada with a lifetime, but not past year cannabis use disorder – based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview – meaning participants were in sustained remission. They compared the sample on several demographic and clinical variables, on whether they now moderate or completely abstain from cannabis, and whether they sought treatment/mutual-help or were non treatment-seeking (sometimes referred to as “natural” recovery) in order to help them make this change.
They also used qualitative analyses to examine whether participants’ reasons for changing their marijuana use, strategies to help them change their marijuana use, and strategies to help them maintain the change were different as a function of moderation/abstinence and treatment/natural recovery.
Of the 119 participants, 68 were abstainers and 51 were moderators, while 53 attended treatment and 66 did not attend treatment. Regarding demographics, the sample was 37 years old,on average, and made $43,000 per year, while 70% were male, 80% were Caucasian and, in terms of education, 85% had at least high school diploma. The only demographic difference reported was that abstainers were significantly more likely to be older than moderators.
NOTABLY FROM THE STUDY:
There were no significant differences for abstainers and moderators or for treatment seekers and non treatment seekers for these multiple reasons, one of those, a less commonly endorsed reason, realization of harm (26%), was significantly more common among abstainers relative to moderators.
Regarding strategies to help participants cut down or quit, the top three were:
Finally, regarding strategies to help them maintain their change in marijuana use, individuals also used thinking strategies and changes in their social network, but also in the top three were hobbies and other distracting activities. This strategy was endorsed significantly more often among moderators compared to abstainers.
Regarding the identification of these reasons and strategies from participants’ open-ended written responses, there was a high degree of agreement between research staff who coded the participant responses, suggesting these responses were relatively clear and easy to identify.
Also important to note is that, relative to abstainers, moderators were significantly more likely to have close friends that used cannabis weekly or more (74% vs. 46%) and were less likely to perceive recreational cannabis use and medicinal cannabis use as harmful to society.
This study that used both quantitative and qualitative analyses (i.e., a mixed methods approach) was among the first to examine differences between individuals in remission from cannabis use disorder along both abstinence/moderation and treatment/non-treatment dimensions, simultaneously.
The findings provide knowledge on different pathways into cannabis use disorder remission and identify similarities and differences between these various forms of recovery. Like remission/recovery from alcohol use disorders, Stea et al.’s analyses suggest that, irrespective of the pathway and nature of one’s remission, individuals in recovery endorse using thinking strategies, changes in one’s social circle, and consciously avoiding risky places and situations to help them achieve this goal.
Also similar to individuals with alcohol and other substance use disorders, individuals with more severe problems are more likely to seek abstinence rather than moderation, and to seek formal help in their efforts to cut down or quit.
It is likely that cannabis use severity was associated with greater suffering which helped motivate individuals to avoid cannabis entirely (so as to avoid any risks of even a little use) or to seek formal help (due to failing to meet their goal on their own and thus increasing the likelihood of being able to successfully meet their cannabis goal).
Cannabis or marijuana use has also been associated with:
For individuals with cannabis use disorder that are less motivated for change, this study suggests that identifying reasons that cannabis use might be incompatible with their goals and values, and also identifying the mental health consequences of use, might be helpful for evoking motivation to change.
For those that are motivated to change, it may help to work with them on thinking strategies (such as costs and benefits), on identifying ways to increase time spent with non users and decrease time spent with users (such as mutual-help groups and other settings where health is emphasized such as the gym), and on helping identify risky places and situations to avoid and ways to avoid them (i.e., through less risky hobbies and activities).
Authors suggest that their findings may indicate an approach where individuals with less severe problems can be helped through less intensive methods like online self-management resources; those with more severe problems may benefit most from intervention, sometimes referred to as “stepped care” (see here for a discussion of this issue as related to alcohol). This is an issue that can be studied in future investigations.
In addition, longitudinal research shows that moderation may be a significantly riskier remission pathway than abstinence, with greater likelihood of relapse (see here). It is likely that this is also true for cannabis but requires further investigation.
Stea, J. N., Yakovenko, I., & Hodgins, D. C. (2015). Recovery from cannabis use disorders: Abstinence versus moderation and treatment-assisted recovery versus natural recovery. Psychol Addict Behav, 29(3), 522-531. doi:10.1037/adb0000097
SIGN UP FOR THE BULLETIN
