Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation of a 12-Week Cognitive Behavioural and Motivational Enhancement Group Therapy for Cannabis Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this paper is to provide a preliminary evaluation of treatment outcomes, retention and client satisfaction following a 12-week combined cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and motivational enhancement therapy (MET) group treatment for cannabis use disorder (CUD) delivered in an outpatient setting. Implementation of the program is also described. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using data collected from medical records and self-report assessments. Participants were treatment-seeking cannabis users at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto. Cannabis use, cannabis-related problems, craving, withdrawal symptoms, self-efficacy for remaining abstinent, depression and anxiety were assessed pre- and post-treatment. Treatment retention was calculated by inspecting clinic attendance records, and client satisfaction was evaluated using an anonymous feedback survey. Potential predictors of treatment outcomes and retention were investigated in exploratory analyses. Results: Cannabis use was lower and days of abstinence higher post-treatment (vs pre-treatment). Post-treatment improvements in cannabis-related problems, craving, withdrawal symptoms, self-efficacy and mood were also observed. Completion of group treatment (⩾75% of sessions attended) was 57% and moderate levels of treatment satisfaction were reported. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that a 12-week combined CBT and MET treatment for cannabis use disorder delivered in a novel group setting improves cannabis use outcomes. Potential predictors of reduced cannabis use and retention were identified. Future controlled studies are warranted, and strategies for increasing retention should be explored.
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
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".