Cannabis Use DisorderNCT04173078
Computerized Intervention for Distress Intolerance
A study testing Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention and Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention in people with Cannabis Use Disorder, run by Auburn University.
Trial summary
This study evaluates the impact of a computerized distress intolerance intervention relative to a control intervention on cannabis use-related behavior and neurophysiology. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 30 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Cannabis Use Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention and Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2016to 30 Oct 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 30 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Distress Intolerance Index score >= 20
- Average cannabis use frequency in the past year >= 2-3/week
Who cannot join
- Current suicidal ideation
- History of psychotic symptoms
- Bipolar-spectrum disorder without stabilization on medication for >= 3 months
- Change in psychotropic medication in the past month
- Current CBT for internalizing or substance use disorders
About this study
This study evaluates the impact of a computerized distress intolerance intervention relative to a control intervention on cannabis use-related behavior and neurophysiology.
Read the detailed description
Distress intolerant cannabis users were randomized to a computerized distress intolerance intervention or a control intervention. Primary and secondary outcomes consist of the treatment target, cannabis use-related behavior, and theoretically-relevant neurophysiological processes (i.e., cannabis cue reactivity, response inhibition).
- Conditions
- Cannabis Use Disorder
- Being tested
- Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention, Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention
- Keywords
- distress intolerance, stress
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Computerized Distress Intolerance InterventionBehavioural
Computerized Healthy Behaviors InterventionBehavioural
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention | Experimental | Two, 1-hour computerized sessions that include psychoeducation about emotional avoidance, idiographic emotional exposure, and construction of idiographic implementation intentions to practice distress tolerance skills outside of session. Receives: Behavioral: Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention |
| Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention | Placebo comparator | Two, 1-hour computerized sessions that focus on psychoeducation about the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Receives: Behavioral: Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Distress Intolerance Index (DII) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Self-report measure of Distress Intolerance (Distress Intolerance Index [DII]; McHugh \& Otto, 2012). The DII is a self-report measure comprised of 10 items that are summed together to form a total score (minimum: 0; maximum: 40). Higher scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Change in Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task (MTPT) quit latency from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Behavioral measure of Distress Intolerance (Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task [MTPT]; Macatee \& Cougle, 2015). The MTPT is a behavioral persistence measure that assesses behavioral distress intolerance via the latency to quit a distressing task. Scores range from 0 seconds to a maximum persistence time of 7 minutes. Lower scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Change in Marijuana Problems Scale (MPS) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Self-report measure of marijuana use-related problems (Marijuana Problems Scale [MPS]; Stephens et al., 2000). The MPS is a self-report measure of marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month. The measure is comprised of 19 items with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 38. Higher scores indicate greater marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Change in Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) diagnostic criteria from Baseline to 4-Month Follow-Up
Interviewer-assessed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 Cannabis Use Disorder diagnostic criteria. DSM-5 Cannabis Use Disorder criteria were assessed via interview at baseline and again at the 4-month follow-up. Total number of Cannabis Use Disorder criteria was used to assess Cannabis Use Disorder severity (minimum score: 0; maximum score: 11). Higher scores indicate greater Cannabis Use Disorder severity (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, 4-month follow-up
Change in Timeline follow-back (TLFB) cannabis use frequency from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Percent cannabis use days in the past month (Timeline follow-back [TLFB]; Hjorthoj et al., 2012). The Timeline follow-back (TLFB) is a self-report measure that assesses cannabis use over the past 4 weeks. Percentage of days on which cannabis was used in the past four weeks was used to assess cannabis use frequency (minimum: 0%; maximum: 100%). Higher scores indicate greater cannabis use frequency (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Change in Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Self-reported motives for cannabis use (Marijuana Motives Measure [MMM]; Zvolensky et al., 2007). The Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) is a self-report measure that assesses different motives for marijuana use. The coping motives subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Coping motives subscale is comprised of 4 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 5). Greater scores indicate greater coping motives for marijuana use (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Change in Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) score from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Self-reported state craving for marijuana (Marijuana Craving Questionnaire [MCQ]; Heishman et al., 2009). The Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) is a self-report measure of current craving for marijuana use. The emotionality subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Emotionality subscale is comprised of 5 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 7). Greater scores indicate greater marijuana craving (i.e., worse outcome). In this project, the outcome of interest is the extent to which a laboratory stress induction increases state marijuana craving.
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Secondary outcomes (3)
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of cannabis cue reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Acute Stress modulation of the Late Positive Potential (LPP) to Cannabis Cues. The LPP to visual cannabis cues before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of acute stress modulation of cannabis cue incentive salience. Greater values indicate a larger neural response to cannabis cues during acute stress (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of threat reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Acute Stress modulation of the Late Positive Potential (LPP) to threat stimuli. The LPP to visual threat stimuli before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of acute stress modulation of threat reactivity. Greater values indicate a larger neural response to threat during acute stress (i.e., worse outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of response inhibition (assessed by the N200 [N2]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Acute stress modulation of the N2 to no-go stimuli. The N2 to no-go vs. go stimuli on a go/no-go task before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of the acute stress modulation of response inhibition. More negative values indicate a larger neural response to stimuli requiring response inhibition during acute stress (i.e., better outcome).
Measured: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Nov 2019
- Study start1 Jun 2016
- Primary completion30 Oct 2017
- Study completion30 Oct 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cannabis Use DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- At the end of the baseline assessment, the participant was randomized to the Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention condition or the Computerized Healthy Behaviors condition. Participants in each condition attended two 1-hour intervention sessions followed by a post-treatment assessment. Follow-up assessments were conducted one-month and four-months after the post-treatment assessment.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Auburn University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Florida State University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Richard Macatee, Auburn University
- Investigators
- Richard J Macatee, PhD, Principal investigator, Auburn University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04173078
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 201720828
- Other IDs
- F31DA039644-01A1
- Status last verified
- Nov 2019
- First submitted
- 13 Nov 2019
- Last updated
- 21 Nov 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: All individual participant data will be made available upon request once primary and secondary outcome manuscripts have been published.
Publications
McHugh RK, Otto MW. Refining the measurement of distress intolerance. Behav Ther. 2012 Sep;43(3):641-51. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.12.001. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
PubMed 22697451Macatee RJ, Cougle JR. Development and evaluation of a computerized intervention for low distress tolerance and its effect on performance on a neutralization task. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;48:33-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.007. Epub 2015 Jan 26.
PubMed 25681579Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L. Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Oct;68(5):898-908.
PubMed 11068976Hjorthoj CR, Hjorthoj AR, Nordentoft M. Validity of Timeline Follow-Back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances--systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2012 Mar;37(3):225-33. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.025. Epub 2011 Nov 26.
PubMed 22143002Zvolensky MJ, Vujanovic AA, Bernstein A, Bonn-Miller MO, Marshall EC, Leyro TM. Marijuana use motives: A confirmatory test and evaluation among young adult marijuana users. Addict Behav. 2007 Dec;32(12):3122-30. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.010. Epub 2007 Jun 9.
PubMed 17602842Heishman SJ, Evans RJ, Singleton EG, Levin KH, Copersino ML, Gorelick DA. Reliability and validity of a short form of the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Jun 1;102(1-3):35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.12.010. Epub 2009 Feb 13.
PubMed 19217724Macatee RJ, Preston TJ, Afshar K, Schmidt NB, Cougle JR. Impact of a computerized distress intolerance intervention on electrocortical reactivity to cannabis and threat cues: A randomized controlled trial. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022 Nov;36(7):920-929. doi: 10.1037/adb0000815. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
PubMed 35129994
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Nov 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Computerized Intervention for Distress Intolerance
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04173078
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 201720828
- Conditions
- Cannabis Use Disorder
- Keywords
- distress intolerance, stress
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Auburn UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Florida State University
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Oct 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study evaluates the impact of a computerized distress intolerance intervention relative to a control intervention on cannabis use-related behavior and neurophysiology.
Detailed description
Distress intolerant cannabis users were randomized to a computerized distress intolerance intervention or a control intervention. Primary and secondary outcomes consist of the treatment target, cannabis use-related behavior, and theoretically-relevant neurophysiological processes (i.e., cannabis cue reactivity, response inhibition).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- At the end of the baseline assessment, the participant was randomized to the Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention condition or the Computerized Healthy Behaviors condition. Participants in each condition attended two 1-hour intervention sessions followed by a post-treatment assessment. Follow-up assessments were conducted one-month and four-months after the post-treatment assessment.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Computerized Distress Intolerance InterventionTwo, 1-hour computerized sessions that include psychoeducation about emotional avoidance, idiographic emotional exposure, and construction of idiographic implementation intentions to practice distress tolerance skills outside of session. |
| Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention | Placebo comparator | Behavioral: Computerized Healthy Behaviors InterventionTwo, 1-hour computerized sessions that focus on psychoeducation about the importance of a healthy lifestyle. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 30 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Distress Intolerance Index score >= 20
- Average cannabis use frequency in the past year >= 2-3/week
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Current suicidal ideation
- History of psychotic symptoms
- Bipolar-spectrum disorder without stabilization on medication for >= 3 months
- Change in psychotropic medication in the past month
- Current CBT for internalizing or substance use disorders
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention | Behavioural | Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention |
| Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention | Behavioural | Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention |
Primary outcome
Change in Distress Intolerance Index (DII) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Self-report measure of Distress Intolerance (Distress Intolerance Index [DII]; McHugh \& Otto, 2012). The DII is a self-report measure comprised of 10 items that are summed together to form a total score (minimum: 0; maximum: 40). Higher scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task (MTPT) quit latency from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Behavioral measure of Distress Intolerance (Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task [MTPT]; Macatee \& Cougle, 2015). The MTPT is a behavioral persistence measure that assesses behavioral distress intolerance via the latency to quit a distressing task. Scores range from 0 seconds to a maximum persistence time of 7 minutes. Lower scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Marijuana Problems Scale (MPS) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Self-report measure of marijuana use-related problems (Marijuana Problems Scale [MPS]; Stephens et al., 2000). The MPS is a self-report measure of marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month. The measure is comprised of 19 items with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 38. Higher scores indicate greater marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) diagnostic criteria from Baseline to 4-Month Follow-Up
Time frame: Baseline, 4-month follow-up
Interviewer-assessed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 Cannabis Use Disorder diagnostic criteria. DSM-5 Cannabis Use Disorder criteria were assessed via interview at baseline and again at the 4-month follow-up. Total number of Cannabis Use Disorder criteria was used to assess Cannabis Use Disorder severity (minimum score: 0; maximum score: 11). Higher scores indicate greater Cannabis Use Disorder severity (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Timeline follow-back (TLFB) cannabis use frequency from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Percent cannabis use days in the past month (Timeline follow-back [TLFB]; Hjorthoj et al., 2012). The Timeline follow-back (TLFB) is a self-report measure that assesses cannabis use over the past 4 weeks. Percentage of days on which cannabis was used in the past four weeks was used to assess cannabis use frequency (minimum: 0%; maximum: 100%). Higher scores indicate greater cannabis use frequency (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up
Self-reported motives for cannabis use (Marijuana Motives Measure [MMM]; Zvolensky et al., 2007). The Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) is a self-report measure that assesses different motives for marijuana use. The coping motives subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Coping motives subscale is comprised of 4 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 5). Greater scores indicate greater coping motives for marijuana use (i.e., worse outcome).
Change in Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) score from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Self-reported state craving for marijuana (Marijuana Craving Questionnaire [MCQ]; Heishman et al., 2009). The Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) is a self-report measure of current craving for marijuana use. The emotionality subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Emotionality subscale is comprised of 5 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 7). Greater scores indicate greater marijuana craving (i.e., worse outcome). In this project, the outcome of interest is the extent to which a laboratory stress induction increases state marijuana craving.
3 secondary outcomes
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of cannabis cue reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of threat reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of response inhibition (assessed by the N200 [N2]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment
Time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Nov 2019.
- Background: PubMed 22697451McHugh RK, Otto MW. Refining the measurement of distress intolerance. Behav Ther. 2012 Sep;43(3):641-51. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.12.001. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
- Background: PubMed 25681579Macatee RJ, Cougle JR. Development and evaluation of a computerized intervention for low distress tolerance and its effect on performance on a neutralization task. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;48:33-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.007. Epub 2015 Jan 26.
- Background: PubMed 11068976Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L. Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Oct;68(5):898-908.
- Background: PubMed 22143002Hjorthoj CR, Hjorthoj AR, Nordentoft M. Validity of Timeline Follow-Back for self-reported use of cannabis and other illicit substances--systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. 2012 Mar;37(3):225-33. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.025. Epub 2011 Nov 26.
- Background: PubMed 17602842Zvolensky MJ, Vujanovic AA, Bernstein A, Bonn-Miller MO, Marshall EC, Leyro TM. Marijuana use motives: A confirmatory test and evaluation among young adult marijuana users. Addict Behav. 2007 Dec;32(12):3122-30. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.010. Epub 2007 Jun 9.
- Background: PubMed 19217724Heishman SJ, Evans RJ, Singleton EG, Levin KH, Copersino ML, Gorelick DA. Reliability and validity of a short form of the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Jun 1;102(1-3):35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.12.010. Epub 2009 Feb 13.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35129994Macatee RJ, Preston TJ, Afshar K, Schmidt NB, Cougle JR. Impact of a computerized distress intolerance intervention on electrocortical reactivity to cannabis and threat cues: A randomized controlled trial. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022 Nov;36(7):920-929. doi: 10.1037/adb0000815. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. All individual participant data will be made available upon request once primary and secondary outcome manuscripts have been published.
Related trials for Cannabis Use Disorder
RecruitingPhase 3
Efficacy of PP-01 in Mitigating Cannabis Withdrawal Symptoms in Adults With Cannabis Use Disorder
Cannabis Withdrawal
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Cannabis Use and Outcomes in Black and White Patients With Cancer
Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Study of an Oral Fluid Testing Approach
Cannabis Use, Cannabis Intoxication
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Research Investigating Drug Effects-2 (RiDE-2)
Cannabis Use, Substance Use Disorder (SUD)
Recruiting
MATAspire: Mental Health Awareness Tailored App for Substance Prevention and Integrated Resilience Education
Alcohol Use, Cannabis Use
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Richard J Macatee, PhD principal investigator
Auburn University
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention and Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention in people with Cannabis Use Disorder, run by Auburn University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Nov 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Distress Intolerance Index (DII) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up (time frame: Baseline, post-treatment (i.e., ~1 week following the last treatment session), 1-month follow-up, 4-month follow-up). The study lists 7 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04173078, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Nov 2019.