![Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis use disorder. What do we know and what should we do ? [Les psychothérapies dans le trouble de l'usage du cannabis. Que sait-on et que devrait-on faire ?]](https://bibliotheque.cpa01.fr/img_cache/pmb_cpa_record_113517.webp)
| Titre : | Psychotherapeutic interventions for cannabis use disorder. What do we know and what should we do ? [Les psychothérapies dans le trouble de l'usage du cannabis. Que sait-on et que devrait-on faire ?] |
| Auteurs : | POULIQUEN, Aut. ; AURIACOMBE MARC, Aut. |
| Type de document : | Article |
| Dans : | ENCEPHALE (1 vol 48, 2022) |
| Article en page(s) : | 70-77 |
| Note générale : | 65 réf. bibliogr.bibliogr./Tabl./ascodo300 |
| Descripteurs |
[LISTES] COCHRANE [SANTEPSY] ADDICTION [SANTEPSY] CANNABIS [SANTEPSY] CRAVING [SANTEPSY] ENTRETIEN MOTIVATIONNEL [SANTEPSY] EVOLUTION [SANTEPSY] PSYCHOTHERAPIE [SANTEPSY] REVUE DE LA LITTERATURE [SANTEPSY] THERAPIE COMPORTEMENTALE ET COGNITIVE |
| Résumé : | Background : Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder and demand for treatment is growing worldwide. Objectives : Our aim was to compare the two last Cochrane systematic reviews of the literature concerning psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder to determine what new evidence emerged and how craving was considered as a treatment mediator. Method : We extracted raw data from both reviews regarding their titles, objectives, methods and results. This information was analyzed by face validity to distinguish apparent differences from real differences. It enabled us to describe similarities and differences between reviews. We also screened both reviews looking for craving or related words. Results : The objective and methods of both reviews were mostly similar. Although the second review covered a wider range of psychotherapies, including drug counseling and mindfulness-based meditation as an intervention group and minimal treatment as a control group. Five of the six studies included in the first review were also included in the second review. One study excluded from the first review was included in the last review that included an additional 17 studies published after the first review. The 2016 review performed a meta-analysis whereas the first review was descriptive. Both reviews supported the efficacy of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive and behavioral therapy interventions with adjunction of contingency management for abstinence when possible. There was no relevant mention of craving in the 2006 review and very few in the 2016 review. Conclusion : The methods and results of the last two Cochrane reviews on psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder were mostly similar. Consistent with other reviews on the same subject and reviews of psychotherapies for other substance use disorders, the 2016 review confirmed evidence already available in the 2006 review. Instead of confirming already confirmed evidence, future research is needed to determine if craving focused treatment would increase efficiency and how to maintain initial treatment outcomes long-term. [Résumé d'auteur] |
| En ligne : | https://www.em-premium.com/article/1501144 |
Bibliothèque Médicale et Professionnelle
Bibliothèque Médicale & Professionnelle
Accueil
Sélection de la langue
Se connecter
Adresse
Bibliothèque Médicale et Professionnelle04 74 52 28 07
contact
