Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Population Surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument). METHOD: Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators. RESULTS: There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.

Contingency Management for Drug Use Disorders: Meta-Analysis and Application of Tolin's Criteria.

Several professional organizations and federal agencies recommend contingency management (CM) as an empirically supported treatment for drug use disorder. However, the release of the "Tolin criteria" warrants an updated recommendation. Using this methodology, five meta-analyses (84 studies, 11,000 participants) were reviewed. Two meta-analyses were rated moderate quality, and three were rated low or critically low quality. Comparator conditions included active treatment, placebo, treatment as usual, and no treatment. The primary outcome was abstinence. Considering only the moderate quality meta-analyses, the effect of CM versus control on posttreatment abstinence was d = 0.54 [0.43, 0.64] and follow-up abstinence was d=0.08 [0.00, 0.16]. A "strong" recommendation was provided for CM as an empirically supported treatment for drug use disorder.

Alcohol and cannabis co-use: Receptiveness to treatments and application to intervention planning.

Given the prevalence of alcohol and cannabis co-use among college students, prevention for co-use is crucial. We examined hypothetical receptiveness to substance-specific interventions among students who reported co-use. Students who use alcohol and cannabis were more receptive to alcohol interventions than cannabis interventions. Campus prevention experts should consider offering evidence-based alcohol-focused interventions as a potential pathway for decreasing substance use among college students who engage in co-use.

Examining the validity of the addictions neuroclinical assessment domains in a crowdsourced sample of adults with current alcohol use.

Several dimensional frameworks for characterizing heterogeneity in alcohol use disorder (AUD) have been proposed, including the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA). The ANA is a framework for assessing individual variability within AUD across three domains corresponding to the proposed stages of the addiction cycle: reward (binge-intoxication stage), negative emotionality (withdrawal-negative affect stage), and cognitive control (preoccupation-anticipation stage). Recent work has evaluated the ANA's three-factor structure and construct validity, primarily in treatment-seekers with AUD. We extended this research by examining the factor structure, bias across alcohol use severity, longitudinal invariance, and concurrent and predictive validity of a novel assessment of the ANA domains in adults with past 12-month regular (10 + alcohol units/week) alcohol use. Participants recruited from Prolific (N = 732), a crowdsourced data collection platform, completed various self-report measures. A test-retest subsample (n = 234) completed these measures 30 days later. Split-half exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the ANA. The overall factor structure was invariant across 30 days. Concurrently and prospectively, ANA domains demonstrated convergent validity concerning theoretically aligned alcohol-related, psychological, and personality measures. However, there was evidence of poor discriminant validity, and several cognitive control and reward items demonstrated bias across alcohol use severity. Future research is needed to improve the measurement of ANA domains using multimodal indicators, examine longitudinal changes in domains and their relationship with alcohol use severity, characterize phenotypic subgroups based on relative levels of domains, and compare the utility of the ANA with other proposed frameworks for measuring AUD heterogeneity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Beyond mediators: A critical review and methodological path forward for studying mechanisms in alcohol use treatment research.

Understanding how treatments for alcohol use disorder (AUD) facilitate behavior change has long been recognized as an important area of research for advancing clinical care. However, despite decades of research, the specific mechanisms of change for most AUD treatments remain largely unknown because most prior work in the field has focused only on statistical mediation. Statistical mediation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish evidence for a mechanism of change. Mediators are intermediate variables that account statistically for the relationship between independent and dependent variables, whereas mechanisms provide more detailed explanations of how an intervention leads to a desired outcome. Thus, mediators and mechanisms are not equivalent. To advance mechanisms of behavior change research, in this critical review we provide an overview of methodological shortfalls of existing AUD treatment mechanism research and introduce an etiologically informed precision medicine approach that facilitates the testing of mechanisms of behavior change rather than treatment mediators. We propose a framework for studying mechanisms in alcohol treatment research that promises to facilitate our understanding of behavior change and precision medicine (i.e., for whom a given mechanism of behavior change operates and under what conditions). The framework presented in this review has several overarching goals, one of which is to provide a methodological roadmap for testing AUD recovery mechanisms. We provide two examples of our framework, one pharmacological and one behavioral, to facilitate future efforts to implement this methodological approach to mechanism research. The framework proposed in this critical review facilitates the alignment of AUD treatment mechanism research with current theories of etiologic mechanisms, precision medicine efforts, and cross-disciplinary approaches to testing mechanisms. Although no framework can address all the challenges related to mechanisms research, our goal is to help facilitate a shift toward more rigorous and falsifiable behavior change research.

Evidence-Based Assessment of Substance Use Disorder.

The current review describes updated information on the evidence-based assessment of substance use disorder. We offer an overview of the state of the science for substance-related assessment targets, instruments (screening, diagnosis, outcome and treatment monitoring, and psychosocial functioning and wellbeing) and processes (relational and technical) as well as recommendations for each of these three components. We encourage assessors to reflect on their own biases, beliefs, and values, including how those relate to people that use substances, and to view the individual as a whole person. It is important to consider a person's profile of symptoms and functioning inclusive of strengths, comorbidities, and social and cultural determinants. Collaborating with the patient to select the assessment target that best fits their goals and integration of assessment information in a holistic manner is critical. We conclude by providing recommendations for assessment targets, instruments, and processes as well as recommendations for comprehensive substance use disorder assessment, and describe future directions for research.

Longitudinal measurement invariance of constructs derived from the addiction cycle.

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Addiction Research Domain Criteria (AARDoC) is an organizational framework for assessing heterogeneity in addictive disorders organized across the addiction cycle domains of incentive salience, negative emotionality, and executive functioning and may have benefits for precision medicine. Recent work found pretreatment self-report items mapped onto the addiction cycle domains and predicted 1- and 3-year alcohol use disorder treatment outcomes. Given the potential utility of the addiction cycle domains for predicting relevant treatment outcomes, this study sought to evaluate the longitudinal measurement invariance of the domains. METHOD: We conducted a secondary analysis of individuals with alcohol use disorder (n = 1,383, 30.9% female, 76.8% non-Hispanic White, 11.2% Hispanic) who participated in the COMBINE study. Eleven items assessed at pre- and posttreatment were included in exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and longitudinal invariance analyses. RESULTS: The pre- and posttreatment ESEM models had factor loadings consistent with the three addiction cycle domains and fit the data well. The ESEM factor structure was invariant from pre- to posttreatment (representing configural invariance) and metric invariance (factor loadings) was largely supported, but analyses failed to support scalar invariance (item-level thresholds) of the addiction cycle domains. CONCLUSIONS: A three-factor structure representing addiction cycle domains can be modeled using brief self-report measures pre- and posttreatment. Individuals demonstrated a downward shift in the level of item endorsement, indicating improvement with treatment. Although this 11-item measure might be useful at baseline for informing treatment decisions, results indicate the need to exercise caution in comparing the addiction cycle domains pre- to posttreatment within persons. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

(Mis)understanding alcohol use disorder: Making the case for a public health first approach.

'Alcohol use disorder' (AUD) is used by several contemporary conceptualizations to identify, treat and prevent problems associated with alcohol use. Such conceptualizations encompass diagnostic classifications and broader frameworks for policy and practice. However, current AUD concepts are subject to multiple tensions and limitations in capturing and responding to the complex and heterogeneous nature of alcohol problems. Further, public understandings of alcohol problems are heavily divergent from professional AUD concepts and remain embedded within an 'alcoholism' master narrative in which disease model stereotypes come with multiple costs for prevention and 'recovery'. The persistence of a problematic 'alcoholism' paradigm reflects the coalescing of multiple forces including the cognitive appeal of reductionism, motives to stigmatize and 'other', and an over-emphasis on AUD as an individually located biomedical problem. Public misperceptions of AUD as a matter of the individual, the individual's essence, and misconceived notions of responsibility and control have been bolstered by industry interests and the ascension of neuroscience and genetics, in turn diverting attention from the importance of the environmental and commercial determinants of health and the effectiveness of under-utilized public health policies. We call for multiple stakeholders to support efforts to prioritize a public health first approach to advancing AUD research, policy and treatment in order to make significant advances in AUD prevention and treatment. We offer several recommendations to assist in shifting public understanding and scientific limitations in AUD concepts and responses.

Interpretations and experiences of subjective effects for alcohol alone and when combined with cannabis: A mixed-methods approach.

Subjective effects generally describe the feelings one has when consuming substances. There are several tools available for measuring alcohol-related subjective effects but there are reasons to believe that effects are interpreted differently across participants. The assessment of alcohol-related subjective effects is further complicated by the fact that many people use other substances with alcohol, including cannabis. The present study used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate interpretations of 21 subjective effects used in common assessments among a college student sample (N = 99; primarily White [79%], Hispanic [60%] women [74%], 72% of which reported lifetime couse of alcohol and cannabis). We sought to (a) estimate the prevalence of each effect and the amount of alcohol/number of drinks (and, for those with simultaneous use, amount of cannabis/number of hits) required to experience each effect and (b) evaluate how participants interpreted each effect that they had ever experienced when drinking (for our sample who had used only alcohol) or when simultaneously using alcohol and cannabis (for our sample who had reported simultaneous use). Across both samples, we found that several effects were far more common than others and participants had varied interpretations of each subjective effect. Further, qualitative results demonstrated that participants interpreted some subjective effects in a way that differed from the original intention of the measure. Results suggest a degree of measurement error when using common subjective effects assessment tools. Findings lay the groundwork for standardized measures of subjective effects for simultaneous use and have implications for future real-world assessment and intervention work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Alcohol use disorder conceptualizations and diagnoses reflect their sociopolitical context.

The present paper highlights how alcohol use disorder (AUD) conceptualizations and resulting diagnostic criteria have evolved over time in correspondence with interconnected sociopolitical influences in the United States. We highlight four illustrative examples of how DSM-defined alcoholism, abuse/dependence, and AUD have been influenced by sociopolitical factors. In doing so, we emphasize the importance of recognizing and understanding such sociopolitical factors in the application of AUD diagnoses. Last, we offer a roadmap to direct the process of future efforts toward the improved diagnosis of AUD, with an emphasis on pursuing falsifiability, acknowledging researchers' assumptions about human behavior, and collaborating across subfields. Such efforts that center the numerous mechanisms and functions of behavior, rather than signs or symptoms, have the potential to minimize sociopolitical influences in the development of diagnostic criteria and maximize the treatment utility of diagnoses.

An Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Substance Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Application of the Society of Clinical Psychology Criteria for Empirically Supported Treatments.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a commonly used treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) but has not been evaluated using the American Psychological Association's "Tolin Criteria" for determining the empirical basis of psychological treatments. The current systematic review evaluated five meta-analyses of CBT for SUD. One meta-analysis had sufficient quality to be considered in the evaluation of effect sizes. CBT produced small to moderate effects on substance use when compared to inactive treatment and was most effective at early follow-up (1-6 months post-treatment) compared to late follow-up (8+ months post-treatment). Sensitivity analyses including all five meta-analyses found similar results. A "strong recommendation" was provided for CBT as an empirically supported treatment for SUD, based on effects on substance use, quality of evidence, and consideration of contextual factors (e.g., efficacy in diverse populations).

Cognitive-behavioral treatment for gambling harm: Umbrella review and meta-analysis.

The aim of the current umbrella review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the methodological rigor of existing meta-analyses on cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for gambling harm. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched for meta-analyses of CBT for gambling harm among individuals aged 18 years and older. The search yielded five meta-analyses that met inclusion criteria, representing 56 unique studies and 5389 participants. The methodological rigor for one meta-analyses was rated high, two were moderate, and two were critically low. Including only moderate- to high-quality meta-analyses, a robust variance estimation meta-analysis indicated that CBT significantly reduced gambling disorder severity (g = -0.91), gambling frequency (g = -0.52), and gambling intensity (g = -0.32) relative to minimal and no treatment control at posttreatment, suggesting 65%-82% of participants receiving CBT will show greater reductions in these outcomes than minimal or no treatment controls. Overall, there is strong evidence for CBT in reducing gambling harm and gambling behavior, and this evidence provides individuals, clinicians, managed care companies, and policymakers with clear recommendations about treatment selection.

Real Change or Performative Anti-Racism? Clinical Psychology Programs' Efforts to Recruit and Retain BIPOC Scholars.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed perceptions of Clinical Psychology doctoral programs' efforts to recruit and retain faculty and graduate students of color, as well as differences in perceptions based on participants' position within their program (i.e. graduate student versus faculty) and race. METHOD: Participants (n = 297; 35% people of color; 79% female; mean age: 32) were graduate students and faculty from Clinical Psychology doctoral programs who completed an anonymous online survey about their programs' efforts to recruit and retain graduate students and faculty of color; sense of belonging and perceptions of racial discrimination within programs; and experiences of cultural taxation and racism within programs. RESULTS: Faculty (n = 95) reported significantly greater perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts and fewer perceptions of racial discrimination than did graduate students (n = 202). Asian (n = 31), Black (n = 25), and Latinx (n = 35) participants reported significantly fewer perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts, less sense of belonging, and greater perceptions of racial discrimination than did White participants (n = 192). Cultural taxation was common among participants of color, and approximately half (47%) reported they have considered leaving academia - and approximately one third (31%) have considered leaving their program - due to experiences of racism in their program or field. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural taxation and racial discrimination were common among scholars of color in this sample. Whether intentional or not, these experiences contribute to racially-toxic environments and negatively impact the racial diversity of the mental health workforce.

Relative and Interactive Associations of Psychosocial Intervention and Alcoholics Anonymous Attendance With Alcohol Use Disorder Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial intervention and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)/mutual help organization attendance are both associated with alcohol use disorder (AUD) outcomes. However, no research has explored the relative or interactive associations of psychosocial intervention and AA attendance with AUD outcomes. METHOD: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) outpatient arm participants (N = 952), who were randomly assigned to complete 12-session cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT, n = 301), 12-session 12-step facilitation (TSF, n = 335), or 4-session motivational enhancement therapy (MET, n = 316). Regression analyses tested the association of psychosocial intervention attendance only, AA attendance only (measured as past-90-day attendance immediately after psychosocial intervention, as well as 1 and 3 years after intervention), and their interaction with the percentage of drinking days and percentage of heavy drinking days after intervention, 1 year after intervention, and 3 years after intervention. RESULTS: When accounting for AA attendance and other variables, attending more psychosocial intervention sessions was consistently associated with fewer drinking days and heavy drinking days after intervention. AA attendance was consistently associated with a lower percentage of drinking days at 1 and 3 years after intervention, when accounting for psychosocial intervention attendance and other variables. Analyses failed to identify an interaction between psychosocial intervention attendance and AA attendance with AUD outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial intervention and AA attendance are robustly associated with better AUD outcomes. Replication studies comprising samples of individuals who attend AA more than once per week are needed to further test the interactive association of psychosocial intervention attendance and AA attendance with AUD outcomes.

An Ethics and Social-Justice Approach to Collecting and Using Demographic Data for Psychological Researchers.

The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions toward equity. However, many current methods surrounding demographic data do not achieve this goal. Some methods function to reduce, but not eliminate, inequities, whereas others may perpetuate harmful stereotypes, invalidate minoritized identities, and exclude key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. In this article, we aim to (a) review key ethical and social-justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research and (b) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in social-science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Although demographic data methods vary across subdisciplines and research topics, we assert that these core issues-and solutions-are relevant to all research within the psychological sciences, including basic and applied research. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially-just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of demographic data.

Self-report assessment of alcohol sensitivity: An examination of the effects of different probes.

OBJECTIVE: Level of response (LOR) to alcohol is associated with several alcohol-related risk factors and outcomes. However, existing self-report measures of LOR have important limitations. For example, the Self-Rating of the Effects of Alcohol Scale assesses a limited range of alcohol-related effects. Although the Alcohol Sensitivity Questionnaire (ASQ) samples a broader range of effects, it uses different probes across effects, confounding type of effect with method variation associated with the use of different probes. Focusing on the ASQ, we systematically evaluate variation in estimated LOR as a function of how number of drinks to achieve an effect is probed. Our approach addresses a major limitation of existing LOR measures which fail to account for sensitivity variability across drinking occasions. METHOD: This study randomized 732 adult drinkers into one of four versions of the ASQ that assessed sensitivity to 15 alcohol-related effects, systematically varying the follow-up probes. RESULTS: Accounting for (a) the minimum number of drinks consumed before feeling an effect and (b) the maximum number of drinks consumed without feeling an effect for all effects is superior to the original ASQ approach in predicting relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of sensitivity should probe for minimum and maximum number of drinks across each of the effects. If impractical to probe for both, consistently probing for maximum number of drinks is desirable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Shifting the discourse on disability: Moving to an inclusive, intersectional focus.

Individuals with disabilities comprise one of the largest marginalized groups in the United States and experience systemic barriers in health care. In Westernized communities, disability has historically been conceptualized via the medical model, which considers disability an individual-level deficit in need of correction. Although other models of disability (e.g., social model) have been developed to address the medical model's ableist shortcomings, these fail to consistently acknowledge intersectionality. Specifically, these models fail to consider that (a) a disabled individual may hold other marginalized or oppressed identities and (b) these intersecting oppressions may exacerbate health inequities. Intersectionality, which originates from Black feminist literature, describes the ways that systems of power and oppression (e.g., racism, sexism) interact to form an individual's unique experience. To date, the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities has been neglected in psychology and related fields, leaving little guidance for how scholars, clinicians, and other stakeholders can address disability via an intersectional lens. The present article discusses how a disability-affirmative, intersectional approach can serve as a strategy for challenging and reforming oppressive systems across the field of psychology. We assert that, ultimately, this approach has the potential to optimize and expand access to equitable, inclusive mental health care, and we propose actionable steps psychologists can take in research, practice, training, and policy in pursuit of this aim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).