A multi-site proof-of-concept investigation of computerized approach-avoidance training in adolescent cannabis users
A multi-site proof-of-concept investigation of computerized approach-avoidance training in adolescent cannabis users
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.03.007
复制
发表时间：
2018-06-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Squeglia, Lindsay M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jacobus, Joanna;Taylor, Charles T.;Squeglia, Lindsay M.
背景：对于使用大麻的青少年，几乎没有有效的治疗选择。这项试点研究旨在测试避免接近训练，以减少非寻求治疗的青少年使用大麻。方法：80名使用大麻但不寻求治疗的青少年（平均年龄19岁）从加州的圣地亚哥和南卡罗来纳州的查尔斯顿招募，并随机完成六次大麻接近-回避任务训练（CAAT训练）旨在减少大麻线索或CAAT假训练的自动接近偏差。检查了两个主要结局变量的变化：1）大麻方法偏倚和2）研究入组期间大麻使用天数百分比。酒精使用百分比的变化天超过研究enrollment.Results：一个混合模型重复测量分析证实了组的方法偏差的时间相互作用效应未能达到统计学显著性（p = 0.06）的次要outcome. Results的探索。显著的组与时间相互作用效应（ps < 0.05）预测了研究招募期间大麻和酒精使用的天数百分比。参与者随机避免大麻条件（CAAT培训）报告7%的大麻使用的天数比0%的变化假;出乎意料的是，那些在避免大麻条件报告10%以上的酒精使用天数比3%以上的sham.Conclusions：计算机化的认知偏差修改范例可能有效用，减少青少年大麻的使用。未来的工作应该考虑开发一种既能解决大麻问题又能解决酒精问题的范式，以及与偏见修正相结合的替代计算机化方法来应对成瘾行为。
Background: Few effective treatment options exist for cannabis-using youth. This pilot study aimed to test Approach-Avoidance Training to reduce cannabis use with non-treatment-seeking adolescents.Methods: Eighty cannabis-using non-treatment-seeking adolescents (average age 19) were recruited from San Diego, California and Charleston, South Carolina, and randomized to complete either six sessions of Cannabis Approach-Avoidance Task Training (CAAT-training) designed to reduce automatic approach biases for cannabis cues or CAAT-sham training. Change in two primary outcome variables was examined: 1) cannabis approach bias and 2) percent cannabis use days over study enrollment. Change in percent alcohol use days over study enrollment was explored as a secondary outcome.Results: A mixed models repeated measures analysis confirmed the group by time interaction effect for approach bias failed to reach statistical significance (p = .06). Significant group by time interaction effects (ps < 0.05) predicted percent days of cannabis and alcohol use over study enrollment. Participants randomized to the avoid cannabis condition (CAAT-training) reported 7% fewer days of cannabis use compared to 0% change for sham; unexpectedly, those in the avoid cannabis condition reported 10% percent more alcohol use days compared to 3% more for sham.Conclusions: Computerized cognitive bias modification paradigms may have utility in reducing adolescent cannabis use. Future work should consider developing a paradigm that addresses both cannabis and alcohol, as well as alternative computerized approaches for coping with addictive behavior in conjunction with bias modification.