Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40627282›Full record

SynthesisPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025

Brief Drug Interventions Delivered in General Medical Settings: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cannabis Use Outcomes.

Lauren M Berny, Lindsey M Nichols, Maria L Schweer-Collins, Emily E Tanner-Smith

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Lauren M BernyDepartment of Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA. lberny@uoregon.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8742-5313
Lindsey M NicholsDepartment of Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1855-3442
Maria L Schweer-CollinsPrevention Science Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8285-9107
Emily E Tanner-SmithDepartment of Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5313-0664

Funding

Effectiveness of Recovery High Schools as Continuing CareR01DA029785 · NIDA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI FINCH, ANDREW J, GRABOWSKI, JOHN G · 2011 to 2015
$2.8M
Brief Substance Use Interventions in General Healthcare Settings: Understanding Variability in EffectsR01DA043589 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI TANNER-SMITH, EMILY E. · 2017 to 2018
$444k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA029785NIDA NIH HHS R01DA029785NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA043589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is consistent evidence that brief interventions can be effective in preventing and reducing alcohol use, but support for their effects on illicit drug use is more limited. This meta-analysis expands prior research by testing whether brief drug interventions (BDIs) delivered in general medical settings reduce cannabis consumption and severity across post-intervention follow-up periods and explores potential heterogeneity in these effects. Findings from 17 randomized controlled trials were synthesized to compare short- and long-term cannabis use outcomes between intervention and control groups. Mixed effects meta-regression models were estimated to examine variability in effects across four intervention characteristics: booster session delivery, delivery setting, intervention target, and target population. Sensitivity tests were also conducted for both main effects and moderation analyses. There was no evidence that BDIs yielded significant short-term reductions in cannabis use (OR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.90, 1.62]), consumption level (g = 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.09]), or severity (g = 0.13, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.33]). Similarly, there was no evidence of effects on long-term cannabis use (OR = 1.19, 95% CI [0.73, 1.86]) or consumption level (g = 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.05, 0.12]). Although the primary analyses did not provide evidence of effect moderation, sensitivity tests revealed BDIs delivered in emergency departments evidenced small but significant reductions in long-term cannabis consumption levels. While these findings do not provide support for the overall effectiveness of BDIs on cannabis consumption or severity in general medical settings, they offer suggestive evidence that BDIs may perform more favorably when delivered in emergency departments. Thus, high-quality trials evaluating the effects of BDIs in emergency departments are needed. Given the importance of preventing adverse health outcomes and consequences of cannabis use, more research is needed to improve and evaluate BDI outcomes. Further, developing and testing alternative prevention and intervention approaches are essential to comprehensively address cannabis use.

Indexed as

Marijuana AbuseMarijuana UseHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBrief interventionsCannabisHealthcareMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID40627282
PMCPMC12394317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.