Contingency management is associated with positive changes in attitudes and reductions in cannabis use even after discontinuation of incentives among non-treatment seeking youth.

BACKGROUND: It is important to identify interventions that reduce harm in youth not motivated to change their cannabis use. This study evaluated how short-duration contingency management (CM) impacts cannabis use attitudes and behavior after abstinence incentives are discontinued among non-treatment seeking youth. METHODS: Participants (N=220) were randomized to 4 weeks of abstinence-based CM (CB-Abst; n=126) or monitoring (CB-Mon; n=94). Participants completed self-report and provided biochemical measures of cannabis exposure at baseline, end-of-intervention, and 4-week follow-up. Changes in self-reported cannabis use frequency (days/week; times/week) and biochemically verified creatinine-adjusted 11-nor-9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations (CN-THCCOOH) were analyzed between groups from baseline to follow-up. In CB-Abst, cannabis use goals at end-of-intervention were described and changes in cannabis use at follow-up were explored by goals and cannabis use disorder (CUD) diagnosis. RESULTS: There was a group by visit interaction on cannabis use (days: beta=0.93, p=0.005; times: beta=0.71, p<0.001; CN-THCCOOH: beta=0.26, p=0.004), with reductions at follow-up detected only in CB-Abst. Following 4 weeks of abstinence, 68.4% of CB-Abst participants wanted to reduce or abstain from cannabis use following completion of CM. Those in CB-Abst who set end-of-intervention reduction goals and were without CUD had greater decreases in cannabis use frequency at follow-up (Goals*time on days/week: beta=-2.27, p<0.001; CUD*time on times/week: beta=0.48, SE=0.24, t=2.01, p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the utility of brief incentivized abstinence for generating motivation to reduce cannabis use and behavior change even after incentives end. This study supports CM as a potentially viable harm reduction strategy for those not yet ready to quit.

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI. RESULTS: Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Cannabis Route of Administration among Massachusetts Adults in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent prevalence estimates of cannabis use among individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) are lacking, and no study has characterized cannabis route of administration (cROA) in this population. These knowledge gaps are relevant because cannabis' effects and health outcomes vary by cROA and the availability and perceptions of cROA (e.g., vaping devices) are changing. METHODS: The Vaping In Buprenorphine-treated patients Evaluation (VIBE) cross-sectional survey assessed the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and cROA among adults receiving buprenorphine MOUD from 02/20 to 07/20 at five community health centers in Massachusetts, a state with legal recreational and medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among the 92/222 (41%) respondents reporting past 30-day cannabis use, smoking was the most common cROA (75%), followed by vaping (38%), and eating (26%). Smoking was more often used as a single cROA vs. in combination others (p = 0.01), whereas vaping, eating, and dabbing were more often used in combination with another cROA (all p < 0.05). Of the 39% of participants reporting multiple cROA, smoking and vaping (61%), and smoking and eating (50%), were the most prevalent combinations. Nonwhite race (vs. white) and current cigarette smoking (vs. no nicotine use) were associated with past 30-day cannabis use in multiple logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use among individuals receiving buprenorphine MOUD in Massachusetts in 2020 was nearly double the prevalence of cannabis use in Massachusetts' adult general population in 2019 (21%). Our data are consistent with state and national data showing smoking as the most common cROA.

A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Cancer Society recently released lung screening guidelines that include smoking cessation counseling for smokers undergoing screening. Previous work indicates that smoking behaviors and risk perceptions of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants were relatively unchanged. We explored American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)/NLST former and current smokers' risk perceptions specifically to (a) determine whether lung screening is a cue for behavior change, (b) elucidate risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and (c) explore postscreening behavioral intentions and changes. METHODS: A random sample of 35 participants from 4 ACRIN sites were qualitatively interviewed 1-2 years postscreen. We used a structured interview guide based on Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model constructs. Content analyses were conducted with NVivo 8. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, but heightened concern about these risks did not appear to motivate participants to seek screening. Risk perceptions were mostly attributed to participants' heavy smoking histories; former smokers expressed greatly reduced risk. Lung cancer and smoking-related diseases were perceived as very severe although participants endorsed low worry. Current smokers had low confidence in their ability to quit, and none reported quitting following their initial screen. CONCLUSIONS: Lung screening did not appear to be a behavior change cue to action, and high-risk perceptions did not translate into quitting behaviors. Cognitive and emotional dissonance and avoidance strategies may deter engagement in smoking behavior change. Smoking cessation and prevention interventions during lung screening should explore risk perceptions, emotions, and quit confidence.