JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v24i4e30138 35442196 10.2196/30138 Original Paper Original Paper Cannabis Use in Adults Who Screen Positive for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: CANreduce 2.0 Randomized Controlled Trial Subgroup Analysis Mavragani Amaryllis Moggi Franz Sofis Michael Wade Natasha Szinay Dorothy Ahlers Joachim MA 1
Swiss Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction University of Zurich Konradstrasse 32 Zurich, 8005 Switzerland 41 444481160 joachim.ahlers@wisemed.ch
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7748-2616 Baumgartner Christian PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5570-7607 Augsburger Mareike PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6564-0717 Wenger Andreas MSc 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4818-4681 Malischnig Doris PhD 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9630-0547 Boumparis Nikolaos MSc 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3693-0168 Berger Thomas PhD 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-7791 Stark Lars MA 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4329-2993 Ebert David D PhD 5 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-0146 Haug Severin PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6539-5045 Schaub Michael P PhD 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-4005 Swiss Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland Institute for Addiction Prevention Office of Addiction and Drug Policy of Vienna Vienna Austria Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy University of Bern Bern Switzerland Arud Centre for Addiction Medicine Zurich Switzerland Clinical Department for Sport and Health Sciences Technical University Munich Munich Germany Corresponding Author: Joachim Ahlers joachim.ahlers@wisemed.ch 4 2022 20 4 2022 24 4 e30138 3 5 2021 13 6 2021 25 8 2021 9 2 2022 ©Joachim Ahlers, Christian Baumgartner, Mareike Augsburger, Andreas Wenger, Doris Malischnig, Nikolaos Boumparis, Thomas Berger, Lars Stark, David D Ebert, Severin Haug, Michael P Schaub. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 20.04.2022. 2022

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Prevalence rates for lifetime cannabis use and cannabis use disorder are much higher in people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than in those without. CANreduce 2.0 is an intervention that is generally effective at reducing cannabis use in cannabis misusers. This self-guided web-based intervention (6-week duration) consists of modules grounded in motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy.

 Objective

We aimed to evaluate whether the CANreduce 2.0 intervention affects cannabis use patterns and symptom severity in adults who screen positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder more than in those who do not.

 Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of data from a previous study with the inclusion criterion of cannabis use at least once weekly over the last 30 days. Adults with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (based on the Adult Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Self-Report screener) who were enrolled to the active intervention arms of CANreduce 2.0 were compared regarding the number of days cannabis was used in the preceding 30 days, the cannabis use disorder identification test score (CUDIT) and the severity of dependence scale score (SDS) at baseline and the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were Generalized Anxiety Disorder score, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale score, retention, intervention adherence, and safety.

 Results

Both adults with (n=94) and without (n=273) positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening reported significantly reduced frequency (reduction in consumption days: with: mean 11.53, SD 9.28, P<.001; without: mean 8.53, SD 9.4, P<.001) and severity of cannabis use (SDS: with: mean 3.57, SD 3.65, P<.001; without: mean 2.47, SD 3.39, P<.001; CUDIT: with: mean 6.38, SD 5.96, P<.001; without: mean 5.33, SD 6.05, P<.001), as well as anxiety (with: mean 4.31, SD 4.71, P<.001; without: mean 1.84, SD 4.22, P<.001) and depression (with: mean 10.25, SD 10.54; without: mean 4.39, SD 10.22, P<.001). Those who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder also reported significantly decreased attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder scores (mean 4.65, SD 4.44, P<.001). There were no significant differences in change in use (P=.08), dependence (P=.95), use disorder (P=.85), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder status (P=.84), depression (P=.84), or anxiety (P=.26) between baseline and final follow-up, dependent on positive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity at baseline was not associated with reduced cannabis use frequency or severity but was linked to greater reductions in depression (Spearman ρ=.33) and anxiety (Spearman ρ=.28). Individuals with positive attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening were significantly less likely to fill out the consumption diary (P=.02), but the association between continuous attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and retention (Spearman ρ=−0.10, P=.13) was nonsignificant. There also was no significant intergroup difference in the number of completed modules (with: mean 2.10, SD 2.33; without: mean 2.36, SD 2.36, P=.34), and there was no association with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity (Spearman ρ=−0.09; P=.43). The same was true for the rate of adverse effects (P=.33).

 Conclusions

Cannabis users screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may benefit from CANreduce 2.0 to decrease the frequency and severity of cannabis dependence and attenuate symptoms of depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related symptoms. This web-based program’s advantages include its accessibility for remote users and a personalized counselling option that may contribute to increased adherence and motivation to change among program users.

 Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11086185; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11086185

 attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder ADHD cannabis cannabis use disorder CANreduce web-based self-help tool online tool online health mental health digital health anxiety depression Introduction

The worldwide prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is estimated to be 5% in children and up to 4% in adults [1-3]. Lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis use are rising [4], with current rates of 26% in Europe [5], 46% in the United States [6], and 28% in Switzerland (4). Lifetime cannabis use is significantly more common in people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (66.1%) than in those without (46.9%); similarly, cannabis use disorders are significantly more common in people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (23.5%) than in those without (8%) [7].

Cannabis is predominantly seen as a safe drug in Western societies [8]. Life satisfaction and stress do not seem to predict the initiation, cessation, or severity of cannabis use in young adults [9,10]; however, research indicates a higher prevalence of various mental health symptoms in cannabis users, such as depression, anxiety [10-13], and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, with increased severity in certain populations such as those in the Czech Republic and France [14-16].

In addition, meta-analyses have documented that attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder alone is linked to high comorbidity rates of mental health symptoms, such as anxiety disorders [17] and depression [18], across all life stages.

Recent research [19] showed a causal genetic link between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and lifetime cannabis use and emphasizes the hereditary nature of both entities. Specifically, the heritability of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is estimated at 70%-80% and of cannabis use initiation at 40%-48% [19].

Cognitive behavioral therapy is an effective treatment option for adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [20]. Furthermore, web-based cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be more effective for cannabis users with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for those without [21]. In addition, the first study [22] that assessed a web-based intervention for people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder found it to be successful alleviating attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms.

There is evidence that integrated cognitive behavioral therapy—a combination of 2 research-based cognitive behavioral therapy methods (one for substance use disorder and one for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder)—performs significantly better than regular addiction treatment, such as cognitive behavioral therapy alone, among attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder patients with cannabis use disorder. Patel et al [23] found that, in adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, comorbid cannabis use disorder is associated with a 90% lower likelihood of successful attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder treatment outcomes than that without comorbid cannabis use disorder. A recent randomized controlled trial revealed that, compared to regular substance use disorder cognitive behavioral therapy, integrated cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in significantly greater improvement in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in patients with substance use disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [24].

Given the high comorbidity rates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder, findings with respect to individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder are promising and should be further evaluated to improve treatment outcomes for individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid cannabis use disorder.

Among studies assessing web-based treatments designed to reduce cannabis use, none has considered whether adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder were included or whether attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a potential moderator of treatment effectiveness.

Web-based interventions are known for removing barriers against seeking help for addictions, particularly stigmatization and inadequate access to treatment facilities [25]. Even though there is a lack of comparable studies using web-based programs to guide cannabis users with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder through their process of reducing or quitting substance use, the effect of cannabis use on persons with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the characteristics of this subgroup of cannabis users have been investigated. Soler Artigas et al [19] discovered a causal relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cannabis use, based on the identification of specific loci predisposing individuals to these traits, which showed that patients with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder have a 7.9-fold increase in the odds of using cannabis than persons without this condition. Wallace et al [26] revealed that the symptoms associated with attention deficits—such as low scores on neuropsychological performance tests—were likely attributable to cannabis use itself rather than to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Brandt et al [27] retrospectively investigated clinical parameters that correlated with cannabis use among respondents with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, and although 14.3% of the respondents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder used cannabis, only 4.3% of those without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder used cannabis. There was also a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric and personality disorders in respondents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who consumed cannabis than in those who did not [27]. Patel et al [23] retrospectively evaluated patient data from adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid cannabis use disorder and observed this patient group’s increased need for acute care. A similar study [28] revealed that a perception exists, among attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder–patient web-based forum participants, that cannabis is beneficial and reduces symptoms associated with the condition.

Several recent meta-analyses [25,29-31] have demonstrated the overall effectiveness and great potential of web-based prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction but that such studies have typically been plagued by high dropout rates. Thus, further analysis of web-based interventions seeking to reduce cannabis use in adults with comorbid attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is warranted.

In a recent 3-arm randomized controlled trial (CANreduce 2.0 study) [32], we examined the effects of an enhanced self-guided web-based intervention tool with a social presence in treatment-seeking adults who overuse cannabis. The social presence included an eCoach for supportive accountability and human support to enhance adherence to the eHealth intervention. We found moderate to medium effects in the reduction of cannabis use days and significant effects influencing secondary cannabis related outcomes, as well as reducing general anxiety disorder symptoms, when compared to an internet-as-usual control group [33].

Previously published studies [27,34-36] have demonstrated that individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder may be particularly at risk of using cannabis, that the severity of cannabis involvement is significantly associated with greater endorsement of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms [34], and that diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder is significantly higher among those with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and concurrent cannabis use [27]. Furthermore, cannabis use has been shown to interact with and decrease the beneficial effects of commonly prescribed medication for individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [35]. In addition, cannabis use severity seems to worsen attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms [36]. Therefore, we anticipated that individuals screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder might particularly benefit from the CANreduce 2.0 intervention compared to individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms.

The aim of this study was to gain insights into the impact of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms on outcomes when individuals who overuse cannabis participate in a web-based intervention, in terms of the program’s efficacy reducing cannabis use, while also examining how severity is affected. In particular, we sought to answer the following question: Does attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity correlate with change in cannabis consumption posttreatment? Secondary outcomes were changes in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity, intervention adherence and retention, and how safe the intervention was perceived to be. We hypothesized (1) that the CANreduce 2.0 intervention would reduce cannabis use and associated mental health problems (ie, depression and anxiety) in participants whether they screened positive or negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; (2) that participants screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder would benefit to a greater extent, in terms of cannabis use reduction, than those screening negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and (3) that baseline attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity would correlate with intervention-related changes in other outcomes.

 Methods Study Design

We conducted secondary analysis of the CANreduce 2.0 data set [33]. The sample was extracted from the 2 active intervention arms (n=367), excluding all individuals in the internet-as-usual group because the study’s purpose was not to determine whether either active intervention was effective relative to a control condition but to compare the degree of effect in patients screening positive versus screening negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. These 367 adults included 94 young adults who screened positive and 273 who screened negative for comorbid attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. For our analysis, participants with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the 2 active intervention arms were pooled, as were those who screened negative.

In the original 3-arm RCT, 2 active arms with an adherence-focused, guidance enhanced, web-based self-help intervention with and without a mostly automated personal eCoach were compared with a nonactive arm (waiting-list controls with access to internet services as usual). The concept of adherence-focused guidance stems from observations that guided self-help programs are more effective than programs without guidance, based on the supportive-accountability model [37]. Each of the 2 active interventions consisted of 8 modules specifically developed to decrease cannabis use and reduce symptoms of common mental disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression. Module content was based on the strategies of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. Study participants were assessed after the intervention, by comparing their baseline characteristics with reports obtained at the 3-month follow-up assessment. Retention of participants in these subgroups was evaluated weekly until the end of the intervention.

 Recruitment

Recruitment took place from August 2016 through December 2018. Potential participants were recruited via the CANreduce websites [38,39] and associated health-related websites linked to the study. Recruitment also was achieved through advertisements in relevant internet forums and newspapers (or web-based versions thereof) and search engine website advertisements. The recruitment process was not attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder–specific—recruitment was neither addressed to persons with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, nor performed in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related institutions, websites, or forums. After completing the 3-month follow-up survey, participants were offered either a voucher (30€, approximately US $33.50) or the choice to donate the equivalent amount to charity.

 Consent Procedure, Registration, and Randomization

Participants could register on the website and had to provide only minimal personal data (email address; a phone number to be contacted, if follow-up questionnaires were not filled out; and basic demographic data), in accordance with the CANreduce 2.0 research protocol.

 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Interested individuals initially were informed about the purpose, background, and structure of the study. They were provided with information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1), followed by information on ethical safe-guards (the right to withdraw at any time, confidentiality) and on data protection and safety arrangements. Informed consent consisted of activating several check boxes that restated important study points and clicking a consent submission button. Potential participants who stated they were in any psychosocial or psychiatric treatment for their cannabis use disorder were excluded. There was no question exploring previous face-to-face attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnostic or related medication, since the rate of participants receiving current psychiatric or pharmacological treatment for adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder was expected to be low. Those still interested and eligible were then asked to register on the website and complete a baseline assessment, after which they were randomized by a computer algorithm in a 1:1:1 ratio into 1 of the 3 study arms (2 active, 1 control). Participants in study arms 1 and 2 were introduced, step by step, to their intervention, while those in study arm 3 were informed that they would be granted access to the intervention after they completed their follow-up assessment 3 months later.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria with rationales.

Criterion Rationale
Inclusion
Informed consent via a web form Ensure knowledge of procedures and declaration of consent
At least 18 years old Ensure minimum age of participation
Cannabis use at least once weekly over the last 30 days Include participants with less than daily cannabis use and increase validity
Internet access at least once weekly and a valid email address Ensure access to the intervention
Good command of the German language Ensure that participants understand the information provided
Exclusion
Participation in other psychosocial or pharmacological treatments for the reduction or cessation of cannabis use Avoid confounding treatment effects
Current pharmacologically treated psychiatric disease or any history of psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar type I disorder, or significant current suicidal or homicidal thoughts Prevent individuals with such problems from entering the study
Study Interventions

CANreduce version 1.0 [40,41] had already been shown to be effective at reducing cannabis use by combining an automated self-help program (web-based psychoeducation modules with a consumption diary) with the opportunity for individual chat counseling, both of which were grounded in motivational interviewing, self-control practices, and classical cognitive behavioral therapy. However, there were difficulties with adherence, retention, and high dropout rates.

The current version (CANreduce 2.0) was designed to overcome these difficulties, with the implementation of additional adherence-focused guidance—feedback on demand and enhanced adherence monitoring mainly through motivational automated emails with weekly reminders, encouragement, and suggestions for further self-help module interventions, and the constant opportunity for participants to ask any questions they might have throughout their participation in the web-based program.

The 2 active study arm groups received the same level of enhanced support, but only study arm 1 received specific enhancements with a social presence, based on Mohr’s supportive accountability model [37]. This involved more intimate, personally addressed emails, texts, and videos from a constantly visualized eCoach, with the intention of creating a more personalized atmosphere, greater alliance between the user and eCoach, and a more considerate and caring participant–counselor connection, and with no explicit need for a certified therapist as constant backup.

 Modules, Dashboard, and Consumption Diary

The CANreduce 2.0 self-help intervention consists of 8 modules that encompass motivational interviewing techniques, traditional cognitive behavioral therapy, self-control practices, and social problem-solving [32]. Modules 1 and 2 are an introduction to the program and its application, helping program users to work through and identify individual triggers and triggering situations, so they can avoid unintentional cannabis use (motivational interviewing techniques [42], cognitive behavioral therapy approach to relapse prevention [43]). In Modules 3-5, skills and techniques are taught to enhance social relationships, restore sleeping patterns, deal with ruminations (behavioral activation approach [44]), and overcome situations considered risky for relapse, such as feelings of discouragement (cognitive behavioral therapy approach for relapse prevention [43] and to handle cravings [45]). By establishing rules and rituals and applying mindful positive thinking, self-talk, envisioning consequences, and distraction techniques, the program’s aim is for users to persevere in their attempts to reduce their cannabis consumption. Modules 6-8 teach problem solving (social problem-solving approach [46]) and rejection skills to help users resist cannabis use that exceed their individual cannabis consumption plan (based on cognitive behavioral therapy [45]); to meet challenges in daily life, such as manifestations of depression; and, upon program completion, to provide them with the opportunity for a personalized review (motivational interviewing techniques [43]).

The advanced version of CANreduce (2.0) is particularly tailored to patients with a common mental disorder such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, to enhance program adherence and achieve better outcomes via improved module content that focuses on dis–related problems. These include associated common mental disorder symptoms such as depressed mood, and problem-solving skills (Module 6), as well as excessive ruminations and poor sleeping habits (Module 3). In addition, to help participants with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are known to be easily distracted, coping strategies (such as focusing on cravings and letting them come and go) are evaluated (Module 4).

The concept of adherence-focused guidance was implemented to help participants who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder focus on the tasks in the modules. As an element of adherence monitoring, automated emails for motivation and emails for information on feedback on demand were sent to the participants.

The web-based program has a dashboard as its starting point that includes an overview of all 8 modules, providing useful information on a chronological timeline with follow-ups and data acquisition. Program users are advised to fill in their consumption diary at least once weekly, wherein participants in both active study arms were asked to define their individual standardized joint (on the basis of 36 photographs with specific cannabis doses) and their cannabis reduction goals at baseline. Participants could choose from 6 different fictional companions to accompany them through the program by communicating written thoughts and questions for further encouragement and reflection.

 Ethics and Data Protection

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the European Directive on medical devices 93/42/EEC, and the ISO Norm 14155 and ISO 14971 of Swiss Law and Swiss Regulatory Authority requirements [32]. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Canton of Zurich (2016-00264) and is registered (ISRCTN11086185).

 Outcome Measures and Instruments

Sociodemographic data that were obtained included sex, age, country of origin, and highest level of education. Baseline characteristics pertaining to substance use included the number of cannabis joints consumed over the preceding 7 days, years of cannabis use, age at which regular cannabis use started, years of cannabis use, and any other substances consumed over the 30 days immediately preceding the study.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the number of days in which cannabis was consumed over the preceding 30 days according to the timeline follow-back method [47], which was compared between baseline and the 3-month follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) score, which can range from 0 to 15, with a score >4 indicating cannabis dependence [48]; cannabis use disorder identification test score (CUDIT), which can range from 0 to 40, with a score ≥ 8 indicating hazardous cannabis use and a score ≥12 indicating possible cannabis use disorder [49]; symptoms (cut off score >14) reported using the ADHD Self-Report scale (ASRS) version 1.1, which can range from 0 to 24 [3]; depression cut off score >16, using Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D), which can range from 0 to 60 [50]; anxiety, using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) cut off score >10, which can range from 0 to 21 [51]; and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder short screening scale score, which can range from 7 to 28, with a cutoff sum score ≥4 suggesting posttraumatic stress disorder. Additional outcomes of interest were participant retention throughout the course of the study (defined as each person’s weekly diary completion rate), level of adherence to the intervention (defined as the number of modules each person completed), and any perceived adverse effects that participants attributed to the program. Study outcomes are described in greater detail elsewhere [31].

 Statistical Analysis

Sociodemographic parameters and baseline clinical characteristics were compared between those screening positive and negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, using Pearson chi-square analysis for categorical variables, analysis of variance for continuous variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test for ordinal variables.

Main outcomes of interest were compared between baseline and 3-month follow-up using paired t tests within each group—individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (screened positive) and individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (screened negative). An ASRS score >13 was considered attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder positive. Linear regression analyses were conducted with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening group allocation as the predictor variable, controlled for the baseline value of the respective outcome variable to compare the individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screen groups. To identify associations between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and reductions in the primary and secondary outcomes after the intervention, Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated. The Fisher exact (2-tailed) test was used to compare the occurrence of adverse effects between individuals who screened positive and individuals who screened negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Rates of retention, adherence, and perceived adverse effects were compared between individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screen using 2-tailed paired t tests. We used intention-to-treat analysis. Missing values were imputed by means of chained equations with 20 sets of imputations [32]. The criterion for statistical significance was P<.05, and all inferential testing was 2-tailed.

 Results Baselines Characteristics of the Study Participants

Participants were predominantly male (263/367, 71.6%). The mean age was 27.9 years old (SD 7.5 years). No significant differences in age (P=.15) or the highest level of education (P=.36) between individuals with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder were detected. The largest percentage of participants were from Switzerland (140/367, 38.1%), followed by Austria (134/367; 36.5%) and Germany (91/367, 24.7%).

All participants screened higher than the cutoff value (CUDIT ≥8) for cannabis use disorder. In the group with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, both the CUDIT and the SDS score were significantly higher (P<.001) than those in individuals screening negative. Scale scores for common mental disorder were also significantly higher (anxiety: P<.001; depression: P<.001; posttraumatic stress disorder: P=.005) in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than in those without.

The mean age of participants when they first started using cannabis was 20.0 years (SD 5.3 years), with a mean 7.9 years (SD 6.7 years) since the start of cannabis use. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for either starting age (P=.45) or duration of use (P=.31). Over the 7 days preceding the CANreduce 2.0 intervention, participants smoked a mean of 21.9 standard joints (SD 15.8 joints) per week. All participants reported cannabis consumption within the preceding 30 days, and 37% (134/367) reported risky alcohol use, which was defined as the consumption of 5 or more standard drinks on a single occasion (Table 2).

Baseline characteristics of the study participants, by group and overall.

Characteristic With attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n=94) Without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n=273) All (n=367) F test (df1,df2) or chi-square (df)a P value
Sex, n (%) 0.58 (1)a .45
Female 30 (31.9) 74 (27.1) 104 (28.3)
Male 64 (68.0) 199 (72.8) 263 (71.6)
Age, mean (SD) 26.9 (7.5) 28.2 (7.5) 27.9 (7.5) 2.10 (1,365) .15
Highest education level, n (%) 13.16 (5)a .36
Compulsory school 10 (10.6) 16 (5.8) 26 (7.0)
Apprenticeship 17 (18.0) 46 (16.8) 63 (17.1)
Middle school 35 (37.2) 79 (28.9) 114 (31.0)
Higher professional education 11 (11.7) 44 (16.1) 55 (14.9)
University 17 (18.0) 76 (27.8) 93 (25.3)
Not stated 4 (4.2) 12 (4.3) 16 (4.3)
Origin, n (%) 0.82 (2)a .66
Switzerland 39 (41.4) 101 (36.9) 140 (38.1)
Germany 24 (25.5) 67 (24.5) 91 (24.7)
Austria 31 (32.9) 103 (37.7) 134 (36.5)
Unknown 0 (0) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.5)
Number of cannabis joints in preceding 7 days, mean (SD) 24.0 (14.4) 21.2 (16.2) 21.9 (15.8) 2.16 (1,365) .14
Number of days cannabis (≥1 joint) was consumed in preceding 30 days, mean (SD) 26.6 (4.9 25.0 (6.4) 25.4 (6.1) 4.76 (1,365) .03
Duration cannabis use (in years), mean (SD) 7.3 (6.1) 8.1 (6.9) 7.9 (6.7) 1.03(1,365) .31
Age of onset of regular cannabis use (in years), mean (SD) 19.6 (5.5) 20.1 (5.2) 20.0 (5.3) 0.58 (1,365) .45
Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test score, mean (SD) 23.7 (4.6) 19.6 (5.6) 20.6 (5.7) 41.10 (1,365) <.001
Adult ADHD Self-Report scale score, mean (SD) 15.8 (1.9) 9.0 (2.9) 10.7 (4.0) 438.60 (1,365) <.001
Severity of Dependence Scale score, mean (SD) 9.1 (3.0) 7.1 (3.1) 7.6 (3.2) 31.01 (1,365) <.001
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale score, mean (SD) 27.4 (9.1) 19.8 (10.5) 21.7 (10.7) 39.40 (1,365) <.001
Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score, mean (SD) 10.7 (4.9) 6.6 (4.5) 7.6 (4.9) 55.90 (1,364) <.001
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Short Screening scale score, mean (SD) 14.9 (4.5) 12.2 (4.8) 12.9 (4.8) 8.18 (1,118) .005
Years of substance use
Cannabis, mean (SD) 7.3 (6.1) 8.1 (6.9) 7.9 (6.7) 1.03 (1,365) .31
Alcohol, mean (SD) 4.5 (6.2) 5.3 (6.5) 5.1 (6.4) 1.08 (1,332) .30
Alcohol, hazardous consumptionb, mean (SD) 1.4 (3.1) 1.8 (4.0) 1.7 (3.8) 0.66 (1,318) .42
Cocaine, mean (SD) 1.1 (3.8) 0.2 (1.1) 0.4 (2.1) 11.15 (1,316) <.001
Substance use in last 30 days, n (%)
Cannabis 94 (100) 273 (100) 367 (100) N/Ac N/A
Alcohol 74 (78.7) 213 (78.0) 287 (78.2) 0.26 (1)a .61
Alcohol, hazardous consumption 35 (37.2) 99 (36.2) 134 (36.5) 0.38 (1)a .54
Tranquilizer 8 (8.5) 16 (5.8) 24 (6.5) 0.73 (1)a .39
Cocaine 18 (19.1) 32 (11.7) 50 (13.6) 2.73 (1)a .10
Amphetamines 23 (24.4) 49 (17.9) 72 (19.6) 2.05 (1)a .15
Hallucinogens 3 (3.1) 22 (8.0) 25 (6.8) 1.44 (1)a .23
Heroin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A N/A
Methadone 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0.2) N/A N/A
Other substances 5 (5.3) 8 (2.9) 13 (3.5) 0.79 (1)a .37

aA chi-square test was used where indicated.

bHazardous alcohol consumption is defined as 5 or more standard drinks (50 mL of spirits, 150-200 mL of wine, or 330-450 mL of beer) per day at least 3 days a week [52].

cN/A: not applicable.

 Main Outcomes

Both individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (mean difference 11.53, SD 21.87; P<.001) and individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (mean difference 8.53, SD 9.4; P<.001) reported a significant reduction in days in the preceding month on which ≥1 joint was consumed. Likewise, a significant decrease was apparent in both the reported severity of dependence score (with: mean difference 3.57, SD 3.65, P<.001; without: mean difference 2.47, SD 3.39, P<.001) and cannabis substance use disorder score (with: mean difference 6.38, SD 5.96, P<.001; without: mean difference 5.33, SD 6.05, P<.001).

A similar pattern was evident for both anxiety (GAD score—with: mean difference 4.31, SD 4.71, P<.001; without: mean difference 1.84, SD 4.22, P<.001), and depression (CES-D score—with: mean difference 10.25, SD 10.54, P<.001; without: mean difference 4.39, SD 10.22, P<.001). However, the decrease in ASRS score was significant for the group with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (mean difference 4.65, SD 4.44; P<.001) but that for the group without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder was not (mean difference 0.83, SD 4.10; P=.19).

There were no significant differences in change in use (P=.08), dependence (P=.95), use disorder (P=.85), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder status (P=.84), depression (P=.84), and anxiety (P=.26) between baseline and final follow-up, dependent on ASRS score >14 (ie, having attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) (Table 3 and Table 4).

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity at baseline was not associated with reduced cannabis consumption (P=.19), severity of dependence (P=.14), or cannabis use disorder scores (P=.69); however, more severe attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms at baseline were associated with greater reductions in depression (P<.001) and anxiety (P<.001) after the intervention (Table 5).

Comparison between outcomes at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up (intention-to-treat analysis)

Outcome Without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n=273) With attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (n=94)
Baseline, mean (SD) Follow-up, mean (SD) Effect size, Cohen d 95% CI Baseline, mean (SD) Follow-up, mean (SD) Effect size, Cohen d 95% CI
Number of days cannabis (≥1 joint) was consumed in preceding 30 days 25.00 (6.40) 16.49 (10.04) 1.01 0.70 to 1.31 26.59 (4.93) 15.05 (9.76) 0.77 0.59 to 0.94
Severity of Dependence Scale 7.10 (3.06) 4.63 (3.02) 0.81 0.51 to 1.11 9.13 (3.02) 5.55 (2.86) 0.65 0.47 to 0.82
Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test 19.59 (5.65) 14.26 (6.40) 0.88 0.58 to 1.18 23.72 (4.61) 17.34 (5.87) 0.50 0.33 to 0.67
Adult ADHD Self-Report scale 9.00 (2.95) 8.17 (4.01) 0.24 −0.05 to 0.52 15.80 (1.88) 11.15 (4.40) 0.58 0.41 to 0.75
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale 19.77 (10.53) 15.38 (9.96) 0.59 0.30 to 0.88 27.41 (9.06) 17.16 (10.03) 0.75 0.57 to 0.92
Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale 6.57 (4.49) 4.71 (3.53) 0.46 0.17 to 0.75 10.68 (4.87) 6.37 (3.56) 0.76 0.59 to 0.93

Regression analysis of changes in cannabis consumption, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, and anxiety 3 months after initiating the intervention (intention-to-treat analysis, n=282)

Outcome variable B (SE) 95% CI t value P value
Number of days cannabis (≥1 joint) was consumed in preceding 30 days −3.72 (2.14) −7.18 to 8.58 −1.73 .08
Severity of Dependence Scale 0.03 (0.68) −1.31 to 1.39 0.05 .95
Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test 0.26 (1.41) −1.48 to 7.16 0.18 .85
Adult ADHD Self-Report scale 0.20 (1.03) 1.38 to 5.54 0.20 .84
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale 0.20 (1.03) 1.38 to 5.54 0.20 .84
Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale 0.89 (0.80) 1.24 to 3.40 1.11 .26

Spearman rank correlation coefficients for baseline attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity versus primary and secondary outcome change scores.

Outcome variable Spearman ρ 95% CI t value P value
Number of days cannabis (≥1 joint) was consumed in preceding 30 days 0.14 −0.07 to 0.33 1.31 .19
Severity of Dependence Scale 0.11 −0.04 to 0.26 1.49 .14
Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test 0.04 −0.16 to 0.24 0.39 .69
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale 0.33 0.19 to 0.46 4.33 <.001
Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale 0.28 −0.13 to 0.42 3.57 <.001
Retention

Figure 1 shows the rate at which participants made entries into the consumption diary from week 1 through week 6 after baseline, and at the final follow-up assessment for both study groups. A significant intergroup difference was apparent at the final 3-month follow-up assessment, with a lower percentage of individuals having filled out the diary in the individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder than the individuals without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screen group (χ12=5.21, P=.02). Overall, there was no significant association between baseline attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity and retention rate (ρ=−0.10, P=.13).

Retention throughout the study period of participants who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (blue) versus those who screened negative (red).

 Participant Adherence

There was no statistically significant difference (t159.27=0.96, P=.34) in the number of modules completed among those screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (mean 2.10, SD 2.33) and those who screened negative (mean 2.36, SD 2.36). There also was no significant association between the magnitude of decrease in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and the number of completed modules (ρ=−0.09, P=.43).

 Safety

Of 55 individuals who completed the questionnaire on adverse intervention effects, 44 (80%) answered that they had not experienced any negative effects during the study, while 7 people (12.7%) answered that an adverse effect had affected them somewhat negatively, 3 people (5.4%) answered that an adverse effect had affected them quite negatively, and 1 person (1.8%) an adverse effect had affected them to a great extent. There was no significant difference in the percentage of individuals screening positive with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and individuals screening negative with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who reported adverse effects (P=.33).

 Discussion Principal Results

In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether the CANreduce 2.0 program can reduce cannabis use in adults who screen either positive or negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and whether individuals screening positive might benefit more from the program than those screening negative. Furthermore, we aimed to determine whether individuals with a positive attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screen and more severe attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms might benefit most from the CANreduce 2.0 program. The study’s main finding was that participation in the CANreduce 2.0 program reduced cannabis consumption from baseline to follow-up, both among individuals who screened positive and individuals who screened negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Both SDS scores and CUDIT scores, indicating that the severity of dependence (both groups: P<.001) and frequency of cannabis use (both groups: P<.001), respectively, also were significantly lower after participation in the program; however, no significant differences (SDS: P=.14; CUDIT: P=.69) in the magnitude of reduction in these scores were apparent between participants who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and those who screened negative. Similarly, psychological comorbidities—such as anxiety and depression—also improved after program participation, with significant changes observed in both the attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder positive and negative screening groups (P<.001). Participants with more severe attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms at baseline exhibited a greater reduction in depression and anxiety than those with milder symptoms. The rate of retention was significantly less (P=.02) in the individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder group at the end of the study period 3 months after starting the program, while attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity was not significantly associated with the retention rate (P=.13). Those screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and those screening negative did not significantly differ in their adherence to the program (P=.43) or the number reporting adverse events (P=.33).

Although cannabis is a widely used psychoactive substance that may induce dependency and cause associated problems, many users do not seek help at outpatient addiction centers. Reasons for this include the relative inaccessibility of treatment centers, fear of stigmatization, and inadequate awareness that treatment is needed [40]. Web-based self-help programs have yielded beneficial results for alcohol and tobacco users [53-56], but information on the efficacy of such programs for cannabis users is limited. Users with comorbid psychiatric diseases, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, might particularly benefit from web-based self-help with adherence-focused guidance, as their attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder could innately aggravate their ability to adhere to a program lacking such support. However, no significant differences between the 2 screening groups in our study (those screening positive vs negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) were evident, in terms of reducing cannabis consumption (P=.08), the severity of dependence (P=.95), cannabis substance use disorder (P=.85), anxiety (P=.26), or symptoms of depression (P=.84), as all these outcomes were reduced similarly in the 2 groups. Hence, the program appears to provide similar benefits to cannabis users who screen positive and those who screen negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which is contrary to our expectation of a particular benefit for users with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Participants who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder filled out the consumption diary to a lesser extent over the course of follow-up. It is, therefore, possible that participants screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder used the intervention less than those without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder over time and, as such, the program’s effects might have been blunted in that group. At the same time, there were no differences in adherence between the 2 groups, which means that, over the course of the intervention, those screening positive and negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder participated in the program to roughly the same degree. This is an encouraging outcome, as it potentially indicates that individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder can, indeed, participate in and adhere to a web-based remote intervention such as CANreduce 2.0. However, it was our assumption that those with more attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms would profit most from adherence-focused guidance. This assumption of ours was based on the beneficial effect of guidance in internet-based interventions [57] and the known deficits of individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder regarding impulse inhibition, working memory, organization, and planning skills [58].

Unfortunately, no conclusion can be drawn regarding possible withdrawal symptoms in our study; we did not assess withdrawal symptoms because we had previously found [50] that the vast majority of persons reduced their cannabis use slowly and gradually, and probably with no or only occasionally very mild withdrawal symptoms occurred.

In our study sample, we observed differences in the completion rates for individual modules in the CANreduce 2.0 program between participants who screened positive versus negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Baseline differences between these groups in their CUDIT, ASRS, SDS, CES-D, and GAD-7 scores might explain these differences, given that individuals screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder entered the program with higher scores for all these measures.

Overall, the only significant difference between those with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and those without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder was the reduction in mean attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder score between baseline and final follow-up (P<.001); however, individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder had higher initial attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity scores, which could explain this difference in the degree of improvement. That the severity of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-specific symptoms was reportedly reduced after the intervention is highly relevant, because it indicates that a cannabis-specific intervention can lead to reduced attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity. However, this might be a cannabis dose–dependent and not a simple direct effect, and verifying this would require controlled pharmacological research. That attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity at baseline was inversely correlated with the extent of change in comorbid anxiety and depression indicated that potential effects of the program might have been overlooked, as a result of the allocation of participants based on predefined threshold of symptoms.

The mean number of completed modules was very low for both, individuals who screened positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity (mean 2.10, SD 2.33) and individuals who screened negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder severity (mean 2.36, SD 2.36). This number is low because approximately one-third of participants only logged in briefly, worked through the first module, and never logged in again. These early dropouts are a common problem in web-based interventions [59], especially with interventions that set the hurdles for study participation low (exclusively web-based recruitment, broad inclusion criteria, and only a web-based baseline questionnaire).

On the other hand, a sizeable proportion of participants stayed in the program for the first 2 weeks and then worked through a large number of the modules. Nevertheless, efforts should continue to find ways to reduce the high dropout rates experienced with this web-based program. The next steps to improve the program could be, for example, identifying through qualitative interviews the background and evaluations of the program by participants screening positive versus those screening negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

 Limitations

This study has certain limitations that must be considered. First, there were baseline differences between the 2 study groups, including a higher number of cannabis use days in those screening positive for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Second, the follow-up duration of 3 months might have been too short to establish any long-term effectiveness of the CANreduce 2.0 program; a longer period of follow-up could provide insights into how well program users retain whatever benefits they appear to achieve from the program. Third, the influence of personalized counseling on the observed outcome, being just one component of the program, cannot be ascertained. Fourth, formally diagnosing attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder requires at least one detailed face-to-face assessment; but given that this study targeted individuals who overuse cannabis in the general population who were not otherwise in treatment for their cannabis use, we had no choice but to rely on a web-based attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder screening instrument and no actual person-to-person contact. Fifth, potential, unrecognized confounders might have resulted from individuals not being randomly assigned to the 2 study groups of interest—those screening positive versus negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder—and any one of these potential confounders could have biased results. Sixth, our analyses were limited by a sample size that was powered for the main study and not specifically for comparisons of those screening positive versus negative for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Seventh, 2 items in the ASRS screening tool, which we used to measure attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, might be prone to elevated scores in heavy cannabis users who do not suffer from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. False-positive results could, thereby, result from potential overlap of symptoms between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cannabis use. Specifically, this refers to the items measuring appointment or obligation forgetfulness and task avoidance or delay. Furthermore, our decision to apply the ASRS [60] to measure attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms was based on our need to keep the assessment time brief. However, more extensive scales exist such as the KATE [61] or CAARS [62] would have most likely provided more reliable results.

 Conclusions

The CANreduce 2.0 program appeared to benefit both individuals with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder similarly. This web-based program offers a personalized counselling option designed to increase intervention adherence and may provide a viable option to reach cannabis users remotely, including those with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and improve both psychiatric comorbidities and overall condition.

CONSORT-eHEALTH checklist (V 1.6.1).

 Abbreviations ASRS

Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale

 CES-D

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale

 CUDIT

Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test

 GAD

Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale

 SDS

Severity of Dependence Scale

The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 10001C_192301). We wish to thank Claudia Witt (Director of the Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland) for her assistance with the manuscript. This study would not have been possible without her support. Thanks also go to Kevin White, MD, PhD, for professional proofreading.

DE has been a consultant for Sanofi, Novartis, Minddistrict, Lantern, Schoen Kliniken, Ideamed. BARMER, Techniker Krankenkasse, and federal chambers for psychotherapy. DE is a stakeholder of HelloBetter.

 Polanczyk G de Lima MS Horta BL Biederman J Rohde LA The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis Am J Psychiatry 2007 06 164 6 942 8 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.942 17541055 164/6/942 Polanczyk GV Salum GA Sugaya LS Caye A Rohde LA Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2015 03 03 56 3 345 65 10.1111/jcpp.12381 25649325 Kessler Ronald C Adler Lenard Ames Minnie Demler Olga Faraone Steve Hiripi Eva Howes Mary J Jin Robert Secnik Kristina Spencer Thomas Ustun T Bedirhan Walters Ellen E The World Health Organization adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population Psychol Med 2005 02 21 35 2 245 56 10.1017/s0033291704002892 15841682 Vogel M Nordt C Bitar R Boesch L Walter M Seifritz E Dürsteler Kenneth M Herdener M Cannabis use in Switzerland 2015-2045: a population survey based model Int J Drug Policy 2019 07 69 55 59 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.03.008 31030906 S0955-3959(19)30064-7 European drug report 2018: trends and developments European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction 2018 2021-05-04 https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/edr/trends-developments/2018_en 2015 national survey on drug use and health: detailed tables Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2015 2021-05-04 https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015/NSDUH-DetTabs-2015.pdf Estévez N Dey M Eich-Höchli D Foster S Gmel G Mohler-Kuo M Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its association with substance use and substance use disorders in young men Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2016 06 25 3 255 66 10.1017/S2045796015000360 25989844 S2045796015000360 PMC6998734 Hurd YL Michaelides M Miller ML Jutras-Aswad D Trajectory of adolescent cannabis use on addiction vulnerability Neuropharmacology 2014 01 76 Pt B 416 24 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.07.028 23954491 S0028-3908(13)00345-6 PMC3858398 Deligianni Studer Daeppen Gmel Bertholet Longitudinal associations between life satisfaction and cannabis use initiation, cessation, and disorder symptom severity in a cohort of young Swiss men Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 04 16 16 8 1372 10.3390/ijerph16081372 30995797 ijerph16081372 PMC6518131 Rougemont-Bücking Ansgar Jungaberle H Scheidegger M Merlo MC Grazioli VS Daeppen J Gmel G Studer J Comparing mental health across Groups of users of psychedelics, MDMA, psychostimulants, and cannabis J Psychoactive Drugs 2019 51 3 236 246 10.1080/02791072.2019.1571258 30836844 Henchoz Y N’Goran AA Baggio S Deline S Studer J Gmel G Associations of age at cannabis first use and later substance abuse with mental health and depression in young men J Subst Use 2014 10 07 21 1 85 91 10.3109/14659891.2014.966342 Copeland J Rooke S Swift W Changes in cannabis use among young people: impact on mental health Curr Opin Psychiatry 2013 07 26 4 325 9 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328361eae5 23689549 Fergusson D Boden J Cannabis use and later life outcomes Addiction 2008 06 103 6 969 76 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02221.x 18482420 ADD2221 Weissenberger S Ptacek R Vnukova M Raboch J Klicperova-Baker Martina Domkarova L Goetz M ADHD and lifestyle habits in Czech adults, a national sample Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2018 14 293 299 10.2147/NDT.S148921 29391802 ndt-14-293 PMC5774466 Martínez-Luna Nieves Daigre C Palma-Álvarez Felipe Perea-Ortueta M Grau-López Lara Roncero C Castell-Panisello E Ramos-Quiroga JA Psychiatric comorbidity and addiction severity differences in patients with ADHD seeking treatment for cannabis or cocaine use disordersPsychiatric Comorbidity and Addiction Severity Differences in Patients With ADHD Seeking Treatment for Cannabis or Cocaine Use Disorders J Atten Disord 2021 05 24 25 7 978 988 10.1177/1087054719875787 31550967 Romo L Ladner J Kotbagi G Morvan Y Saleh D Tavolacci MP Kern L Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and addictions (substance and behavioral): prevalence and characteristics in a multicenter study in France J Behav Addict 2018 09 01 7 3 743 751 10.1556/2006.7.2018.58 30010409 PMC6426372 Maric M Bexkens A Bögels Susan M Is clinical anxiety a risk or a protective factor for executive functioning in youth with ADHD? a meta-regression analysis Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2018 09 26 21 3 340 353 10.1007/s10567-018-0255-8 29484581 10.1007/s10567-018-0255-8 Meinzer MC Pettit JW Viswesvaran C The co-occurrence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and unipolar depression in children and adolescents: a meta-analytic review Clin Psychol Rev 2014 12 34 8 595 607 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.10.002 25455624 S0272-7358(14)00138-X Soler Artigas M Sánchez-Mora Cristina Rovira P Richarte V Garcia-Martínez Iris Pagerols M Demontis D Stringer S ADHD Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium‚ International Cannabis Consortium Vink Jacqueline M Børglum Anders D Neale Benjamin M Franke Barbara Faraone Stephen V Casas Miguel Ramos-Quiroga Josep Antoni Ribasés Marta Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and lifetime cannabis use: genetic overlap and causality Mol Psychiatry 2020 10 25 10 2493 2503 10.1038/s41380-018-0339-3 30610198 10.1038/s41380-018-0339-3 PMC8025199 Knouse LE Teller J Brooks MA Meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatments for adult ADHD J Consult Clin Psychol 2017 07 85 7 737 750 10.1037/ccp0000216 28504540 2017-21394-001 Benyakorn S Riley SJ Calub CA Schweitzer JB Current state and model for development of technology-based care for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Telemed J E Health 2016 09 22 9 761 8 10.1089/tmj.2015.0169 26985703 PMC5031121 Pettersson R Söderström Staffan Edlund-Söderström Kerstin Nilsson KW Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with ADHD in outpatient psychiatric care J Atten Disord 2017 04 28 21 6 508 521 10.1177/1087054714539998 24970720 1087054714539998 Patel R Patel P Shah K Kaur M Mansuri Z Makani R Is cannabis use associated with the worst inpatient outcomes in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder adolescents? Cureus 2018 01 07 10 1 e2033 10.7759/cureus.2033 29535906 PMC5841924 van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen K Vedel E Kramer FJ Blankers M Dekker JJ van den Brink W Schoevers RA Integrated cognitive behavioral therapy for ADHD in adult substance use disorder patients: results of a randomized clinical trial Drug Alcohol Depend 2019 04 01 197 28 36 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.12.023 30769263 S0376-8716(19)30038-9 Taylor CB Luce KH Computer- and internet-based psychotherapy interventions Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2016 06 24 12 1 18 22 10.1111/1467-8721.01214 Wallace A Wade N Hatcher K Lisdahl K Effects of cannabis use and subclinical ADHD symptomology on attention based tasks in adolescents and young adults Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2019 07 26 34 5 700 705 10.1093/arclin/acy080 30295694 5122724 PMC6702590 Brandt A Rehm J Lev-Ran S Clinical correlates of cannabis use among individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder J Nerv Ment Dis 2018 09 206 9 726 732 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000877 30124577 Mitchell JT Sweitzer MM Tunno AM Kollins SH McClernon FJ "I use weed for my ADHD": a qualitative analysis of online forum discussions on cannabis use and ADHD PLoS One 2016 5 26 11 5 e0156614 10.1371/journal.pone.0156614 27227537 PONE-D-16-02818 PMC4882033 Boumparis N Loheide-Niesmann L Blankers M Ebert DD Korf D Schaub MP Spijkerman R Tait RJ Riper H Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis Drug Alcohol Depend 2019 07 01 200 82 94 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016 31112834 S0376-8716(19)30149-8 Olmos A Tirado-Muñoz Judit Farré Magí Torrens M The efficacy of computerized interventions to reduce cannabis use: A systematic review and meta-analysis Addict Behav 2018 04 79 52 60 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.045 29248863 S0306-4603(17)30453-7 Tait RJ Spijkerman R Riper H Internet and computer based interventions for cannabis use: a meta-analysis Drug Alcohol Depend 2013 12 01 133 2 295 304 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.05.012 23747236 S0376-8716(13)00187-7 Amann M Haug S Wenger A Baumgartner C Ebert DD Berger T Stark L Walter M Schaub MP The effects of social presence on adherence-focused guidance in problematic cannabis users: protocol for the CANreduce 2.0 randomized controlled trial JMIR Res Protoc 2018 01 31 7 1 e30 10.2196/resprot.9484 29386176 v7i1e30 PMC5812982 Baumgartner C Schaub MP Wenger A Malischnig D Augsburger M Walter M Berger T Stark L Ebert DD Keough MT Haug S CANreduce 2.0 adherence-focused guidance for internet self-help among cannabis users: three-arm randomized controlled trial J Med Internet Res 2021 04 30 23 4 e27463 10.2196/27463 33929333 v23i4e27463 PMC8122293 Petker T DeJesus J Lee A Gillard J Owens MM Balodis I Amlung M George T Oshri A Hall G Schmidt L MacKillop J Cannabis use, cognitive performance, and symptoms of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in community adults Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2020 12 28 6 638 648 10.1037/pha0000354 32105137 2020-13323-001 Kollins SH Schoenfelder EN English JS Holdaway A Van Voorhees E O'Brien BR Dew R Chrisman AK An exploratory study of the combined effects of orally administered methylphenidate and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on cardiovascular function, subjective effects, and performance in healthy adults J Subst Abuse Treat 2015 01 48 1 96 103 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.07.014 25175495 S0740-5472(14)00164-0 PMC4250392 Volkow ND Wang G Telang F Fowler JS Alexoff D Logan J Jayne M Wong C Tomasi D Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014 07 29 111 30 E3149 56 10.1073/pnas.1411228111 25024177 1411228111 PMC4121778 Mohr DC Cuijpers P Lehman K Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions J Med Internet Res 2011 03 10 13 1 e30 10.2196/jmir.1602 21393123 v13i1e30 PMC3221353 CANreduce: Switzerland 2021-05-04 https://www.canreduce.ch CANreduce: Austria 2021-05-04 https://www.canreduce.at Schaub MP Haug S Wenger A Berg O Sullivan R Beck T Stark L Can reduce--the effects of chat-counseling and web-based self-help, web-based self-help alone and a waiting list control program on cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: a randomized controlled trial BMC Psychiatry 2013 11 14 13 305 10.1186/1471-244X-13-305 24228630 1471-244X-13-305 PMC3830542 Schaub MP Wenger A Berg O Beck T Stark L Buehler E Haug S A web-based self-help intervention with and without chat counseling to reduce cannabis use in problematic cannabis users: Three-arm randomized controlled trial J Med Internet Res 2015 10 13 17 10 e232 10.2196/jmir.4860 26462848 v17i10e232 PMC4642392 Miller W Rollnick S Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change 2012 New York Guilford Press Marlatt GA Donovan DM Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. 2nd ed 2005 New York Guilford Press 1222 1223 Kanter JW Puspitasari AJ Santos MM Nagy GA Behavioural activation: history, evidence and promise Br J Psychiatry 2012 05 01 200 5 361 3 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.103390 22550329 S0007125000271195 Steinberg K Roffman R Carroll K McRee B Babor T Miller M Brief Counseling for Marijuana Dependence: A Manual for Treating Adults 2005 Rockville, Maryland enter for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services Jaffee WB D'Zurilla TJ Personality, problem solving, and adolescent substance use Behavior Therapy 2009 40 1 93 101 10.1016/j.beth.2008.03.001 19187820 S0005-7894(08)00062-2 Buuren SV Groothuis-Oudshoorn K MICE: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R J Stat Soft 2011 45 3 1 67 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 Gossop M Darke S Griffiths P Hando J Powis B Hall W Strang J The severity of dependence scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS in English and Australian samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users Addiction 1995 05 90 5 607 14 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1995.9056072.x 7795497 Adamson SJ Sellman JD A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the cannabis use disorders identification test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample Drug Alcohol Rev 2003 09 22 3 309 15 10.1080/0959523031000154454 15385225 A9QMM4K06484A4HL Radloff LS The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population Appl Psychol Meas 1977 1 3 385 401 10.1177/014662167700100306 Spitzer RL Kroenke K Williams JBW Löwe Bernd A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7 Arch Intern Med 2006 05 22 166 10 1092 7 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 16717171 166/10/1092 Hartz Sarah M Oehlert Mary Horton A C Grucza Richard A Fisher Sherri L Culverhouse Robert C Nelson Karl G Sumerall Scott W Neal Paul C Regnier Patrice Chen Guoqing Williams Alexander Bhattarai Jagriti Evanoff Bradley Bierut Laura J Daily drinking is associated with increased mortality Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2018 11 42 11 2246 2255 10.1111/acer.13886 30281161 PMC6214719 Civljak M Sheikh A Stead LF Car J Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 09 08 11 1 58 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub3 20824856 Haug S Meyer C John U Efficacy of an internet program for smoking cessation during and after inpatient rehabilitation treatment: a quasi-randomized controlled trial Addict Behav 2011 12 36 12 1369 72 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.08.004 21907496 S0306-4603(11)00276-0 Riper H Spek V Boon B Conijn B Kramer J Martin-Abello K Smit F Effectiveness of e-self-help interventions for curbing adult problem drinking: a meta-analysis J Med Internet Res 2011 06 30 13 2 e42 10.2196/jmir.1691 21719411 v13i2e42 PMC3221381 Rooke S Thorsteinsson E Karpin A Copeland J Allsop D Computer-delivered interventions for alcohol and tobacco use: a meta-analysis Addiction 2010 08 105 8 1381 90 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02975.x 20528806 ADD2975 Baumeister H Reichler L Munzinger M Lin J The impact of guidance on internet-based mental health interventions — a systematic review Internet Interv 2014 10 1 4 205 215 10.1016/j.invent.2014.08.003 Willcutt EG Doyle AE Nigg JT Faraone SV Pennington BF Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review Biol Psychiatry 2005 06 01 57 11 1336 46 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006 15950006 S0006-3223(05)00171-X Eysenbach G The law of attrition J Med Internet Res 2005 03 31 7 1 e11 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11 15829473 v7e11 PMC1550631 Kessler RC Adler L Ames M Demler O Faraone S Hiripi E Howes MJ Jin R Secnik K Spencer T Ustun TB Walters EE The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population Psychol Med 2005 02 35 2 245 56 10.1017/s0033291704002892 15841682 Lauth GW Minsel W Kölner ADHS-Test für Erwachsene 2021-05-04 https://www.testzentrale.de/shop/koelner-adhs-test-fuer-erwachsene.html Smyth Alyssa C Meier Scott T Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Conners adult ADHD rating scales J Atten Disord 2019 08 23 10 1111 1118 10.1177/1087054715624230 26838556 1087054715624230