The Effects of Social Presence on Adherence-Focused Guidance in Problematic Cannabis Users: Protocol for the CANreduce 2.0 Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In European countries, including Switzerland, cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug. Offering a Web-based self-help tool could potentially reach users who otherwise would not seek traditional help. However, such Web-based self-help tools often suffer from low adherence. OBJECTIVE: Through adherence-focused guidance enhancements, the aim of this study was to increase adherence in cannabis users entering a Web-based self-help tool to reduce their cannabis use and, in this way, augment its effectiveness. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol for a three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of (1) an adherence-focused, guidance-enhanced, Web-based self-help intervention with social presence; (2) an adherence-focused, guidance-enhanced, Web-based self-help intervention without social presence; and (3) a treatment-as-usual at reducing cannabis use in problematic users. The two active interventions, each spanning 6 weeks, consist of modules designed to reduce cannabis use and attenuate common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorder symptoms based on the approaches of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. With a target sample size of 528, data will be collected at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months after baseline. The primary outcome measurement will be the number of days of cannabis use on the preceding 7 days. Secondary outcomes will include the quantity of cannabis used in standardized cannabis joints, the severity of cannabis dependence, changes in CMD symptoms, and adherence to the program. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and employ (generalized) linear mixed models. RESULTS: The project commenced in August 2016; recruitment is anticipated to end by December 2018. First results are expected to be submitted for publication in summer 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide detailed insights on if and how the effectiveness of a Web-based self-help intervention aiming to reduce cannabis use in frequent cannabis users can be improved by theory-driven, adherence-focused guidance enhancement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry: ISRCTN11086185; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11086185 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wspbuQ1M).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".