Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28289112›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2017

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

Catherine Laporte, Hélène Vaillant-Roussel, Bruno Pereira, Olivier Blanc, Bénédicte Eschalier, Shérazade Kinouani, Georges Brousse, Pierre-Michel Llorca, Philippe Vorilhon

Abstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Brief Drug Interventions Delivered in General Medical Settings: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cannabis Use Outcomes.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Catherine LaporteUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France Catherine.laporte@udamail.fr.
Hélène Vaillant-RousselUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Bruno PereiraCHU Clermont-Ferrand, Office for Clinical research and Innovation, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63003, France.
Olivier BlancUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Bénédicte EschalierUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Shérazade KinouaniUniv Bordeaux, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Bordeaux, F-33076, France.
Georges BrousseUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, EA7280, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Pierre-Michel LlorcaUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, EA7280, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.
Philippe VorilhonUniv Clermont 1, UFR Medicine, Department of General Practice, Clermont-Ferrand, F-63001, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBrief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years.

methodsWe performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care.

resultsThe general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5;

conclusionsOur findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users.

Indexed as

AdolescentFemaleFranceGeneral PracticeHumansLinear ModelsMaleMarijuana AbuseMotivational InterviewingPsychotherapy, BriefSelf ReportTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultaddictionbrief interventiongeneral practicemarijuanapractice-based researchprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID28289112
PMCPMC5348230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.