Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42095924›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2026

A mindfulness-based intervention to reduce altered brain reward function in cannabis use disorder: a double-blind, active and passive, randomised controlled fMRI trial.

Emillie Beyer, Martine Skumlien, Govinda Poudel, Arush Honnedevasthana Arun, Eugene McTavish, Hannah Thomson, Hannah Sehl, Rebecca Segrave, Adam Clemente, Izelle Labuschagne and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Emillie BeyerNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Martine SkumlienDepartment of Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre (SGDP), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Govinda PoudelMary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Arush Honnedevasthana ArunNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Eugene McTavishNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Hannah ThomsonNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Hannah SehlNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca SegraveTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Adam ClementeSchool of Behavioural & Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Izelle LabuschagneSchool of Behavioural & Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Peter RendellSchool of Behavioural & Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Gill TerrettSchool of Behavioural & Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Lisa-Marie GreenwoodSchool of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Victoria ManningEastern Health, Turning Point, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tom P FreemanDepartment of Psychology, Addiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Sunjeev K KambojClinical Psychopharmacology Unit, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Chao SuoNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Valentina LorenzettiNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Level 5 Daniel Mannix Building, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia. valentina.lorenzetti@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) affects ~ 50 million individuals worldwide and is associated with alterations in brain reward pathways. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) show promise in reducing substance use and aberrant brain function in substance use disorders (SUD), but the effects on CUD or brain reward function have not been investigated. To examine whether a 2-week MBI vs. active control (i.e., closely matched relaxation) and passive control (i.e., no intervention) affected brain reward function in CUD using the Monetary Incentive Delay fMRI task, 49 individuals with moderate-to-severe CUD were randomised to: a 2-week MBI (n = 18), active control condition (n = 15), or passive control condition (n = 16), and assessed before and after the intervention. The effect of intervention-by-time was analysed using an exploratory whole-brain approach and a priori regions-of-interest approach (ROIs; ventral striatum, dorsal caudate, putamen, insula, cingulate, and orbitofrontal cortices). Whole-brain results revealed significant intervention-by-time effects. Post-MBI, there was: decreased cerebellum activity while anticipating monetary cues, increased parietal activity while receiving monetary wins, and decreased fusiform/superior frontal gyri (SFG) activity while receiving monetary wins. Post-relaxation, activity increased in several regions (i.e., hippocampus, insula, parietal cortex, fusiform, and SFG) during the receipt of monetary wins. Post-no intervention, activity increased in the cerebellum while anticipating monetary cues, and decreased in other areas (i.e., parietal cortex, hippocampus, and insula) while receiving monetary wins. There were no significant intervention-by-time effects using the ROI approach. Overall, MBI, matched relaxation, and no intervention may share changes in partially overlapping brain regions in distinct directions.

Indexed as

Brain reward functionCannabis use disorderfMRIMindfulness-based interventionMonetary incentive delay taskReward processing

Identifiers

PMID42095924

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.