Jungerman Flavia S, Andreoni Solange, Laranjeira Ronaldo
Alcohol and Drug Research Unit (UNIAD), São Paulo Federal University (UNIFESP), Rua Botucatu 394, 04023-061 São Paulo, Brazil.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 Oct 8;90(2-3):120-7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.02.019. Epub 2007 Apr 6.
The present study evaluates the efficacy of a brief intervention for cannabis users. A randomized controlled trial compared 3 conditions: 4 weekly individual sessions of motivational interviewing and relapse prevention over 1 month (1MIRP); the same 4 sessions over 3 months (3MIRP), and delayed treatment control (DTC). The short term impact of each intervention was followed up 4 months after randomization. Participants were 160 highly educated adults with a long history of frequent cannabis use. Both treatments showed better results than the DTC, and for primary outcomes (i.e., cannabis consumption) there was no difference between treatments, while the 3MIRP scheme showed greater efficacy in reducing dependence symptoms and other drug use according to the ASI drug subscale. There was a tendency for the longer treatment to have better outcomes, regardless of intensity, although the waiting list did have some positive effect. The cohort needs to be followed up for a longer period in order to ascertain whether changes are maintained over time.
本研究评估了针对大麻使用者的简短干预措施的效果。一项随机对照试验比较了三种情况:在1个月内进行4次每周1次的动机访谈和预防复发的个体治疗(1MIRP);在3个月内进行同样的4次治疗(3MIRP),以及延迟治疗对照(DTC)。随机分组4个月后对每种干预措施的短期影响进行了随访。参与者为160名受过高等教育、有长期频繁使用大麻历史的成年人。两种治疗方法都比延迟治疗对照显示出更好的效果,对于主要结局(即大麻消费),治疗方法之间没有差异,而根据成瘾严重程度量表(ASI)药物分量表,3MIRP方案在减少依赖症状和其他药物使用方面显示出更大的疗效。无论强度如何,较长疗程的治疗往往有更好的效果,尽管等待名单也有一些积极作用。需要对该队列进行更长时间的随访,以确定这些变化是否随时间持续存在。