ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2025
Predictors of effective therapy among individuals with Cannabis Use Disorder: a review of the literature.
Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Young Adults Advancing Through the Stages of Change: A Mediational Analysis of Cannabis Use Disorder Treatment.Substance use & misuse · 2025Trial
- Cannabis craving and cross-substance substitution during cannabis treatment: Initial insights across seven cannabis use disorder clinical trials.Addictive behaviors · 2026Article
- Lessons learned: challenges in recruiting and engaging people with heavy cannabis use for online interventions in Canada.Journal of cannabis research · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered by health professionals for adult cannabis use in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Cannabis use in Europe.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment demand for Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) has increased in the past decade in almost all European countries, and CUD is currently the most common reason for first-time drug-related treatment admission in the European Union. Even though several therapeutic approaches have been shown to benefit individuals with CUD, there is a lack of knowledge regarding factors associated with effective therapy and the underlying mechanisms of change among individuals with CUD presenting for treatment. The aim of the present paper was to review current knowledge on factors that have been shown to contribute to positive outcomes in CUD treatment. A scoping methodology was used, focusing on empirically evaluated studies that used defined, cannabis-related outcome measures. In eligible studies, factors of investigation were categorized as either 'mediators', i.e., treatment-related factors associated with the processes or mechanisms through which patients benefit from therapy, or 'moderators' which are patient-related characteristics that predict his/her odds to benefit from treatment or patient-related (i.e., moderators). Factors categorized as mediators were then classified 'specific factors' if they were related to a certain technique or treatment modality or 'common factors' if they were assessed beyond treatment modalities. Findings suggest that in CUD treatment, specific mediators include treatment duration, addressing motivation to change, acquiring coping skills, enhancing self-efficacy, and integrating several therapeutic components. Common mediators include therapeutic alliance, empathy, expectations and cultural adaptation. Moderators in CUD treatment include sex, ethnicity, age-related factors and comorbid disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38493284What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.