IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0053187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Primary Prevention of Cannabis Use: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa M Norberg
  • Sarah Kezelman
  • Nicholas Lim-Howe

Abstract

A systematic review of primary prevention was conducted for cannabis use outcomes in youth and young adults. The aim of the review was to develop a comprehensive understanding of prevention programming by assessing universal, targeted, uni-modal, and multi-modal approaches as well as individual program characteristics. Twenty-eight articles, representing 25 unique studies, identified from eight electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, DRUG, EBM Reviews, and Project CORK), were eligible for inclusion. Results indicated that primary prevention programs can be effective in reducing cannabis use in youth populations, with statistically significant effect sizes ranging from trivial (0.07) to extremely large (5.26), with the majority of significant effect sizes being trivial to small. Given that the preponderance of significant effect sizes were trivial to small and that percentages of statistically significant and non-statistically significant findings were often equivalent across program type and individual components, the effectiveness of primary prevention for cannabis use should be interpreted with caution. Universal multi-modal programs appeared to outperform other program types (i.e, universal uni-modal, targeted multi-modal, targeted unimodal). Specifically, universal multi-modal programs that targeted early adolescents (10–13 year olds), utilised non-teacher or multiple facilitators, were short in duration (10 sessions or less), and implemented boosters sessions were associated with large median effect sizes. While there were studies in these areas that contradicted these results, the results highlight the importance of assessing the interdependent relationship of program components and program types. Finally, results indicated that the overall quality of included studies was poor, with an average quality rating of 4.64 out of 9. Thus, further quality research and reporting and the development of new innovative programs are required.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa M Norberg & Sarah Kezelman & Nicholas Lim-Howe, 2013. "Primary Prevention of Cannabis Use: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0053187
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053187
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053187&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0053187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0053187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.