Should we prescribe medical cannabis to treat withdrawal symptoms in people admitted to psychiatric hospitals?

A study by Dr Aliyah Malik and colleagues suggests that people who suddenly stop using cannabis when going into hospital for a mental health problem and are at greater risk of declining a few days after admission.

The brief report published in JAMA Psychiatry in June this year found that cannabis users are more likely to be transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) after being admitted to the general psychiatric ward of a hospital.(1) This was especially true in on the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th day after being admitted to hospital – the time when you can expect cannabis withdrawal symptoms to be at their worst.

What is a PICU?

A psychiatric intensive care unit, or PICU, is a specialist ward that has more intensive care compared to general psychiatric wards. These wards have more staff are assigned to each patient and stricter security measures in place. People with severe mental health problems may need to spend time in a PICU if they have especially distressing and hard-to-treat behaviours, typically violence and aggression, that could put themselves or other people at risk in a general ward.

What is cannabis withdrawal?

A proportion of people who use cannabis heavily will develop withdrawal symptoms when they stop. Possible symptoms include irritability, anxiety, sleep problems, decreased appetite, depressed mood and physical symptoms such as headaches, stomach cramps, shaking and sweating.(2)  Symptoms typically start 1-2 days after stopping cannabis, peak on days 2-6 and end after 1-3 weeks. Generally, the more cannabis a person uses and the more often they use it, the worse the withdrawal symptoms and the longer they last.(3) Recently, cannabis withdrawal has been linked to relapsing of symptoms in people with psychotic disorders.(4) This could mean that people with severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, who suddenly stop using cannabis due to going into hospital could be particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis withdrawal.

What did this study find?

The study conducted by Dr Malik and colleagues looked at data from all the people who had been admitted to one of 4 psychiatric hospitals in London, UK, between January 1^st, 2008 and December 31^st, 2023 (skipping March 26^th, 2020 to April 26^th, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Overall, 47.2% of the 52,088 people admitted were current cannabis users.

Between 3-5 days after being admitted to hospital, when cannabis withdrawal symptoms would be expected, cannabis users were 41% more likely to be transferred to a PICU than non-users. Controlling for other factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and other drug and alcohol use reduced this to 36%, which is still a significant increase in risk. Certain population groups were particularly vulnerable; women who used cannabis were twice as likely to be admitted to a PICU on days 3-5 than women who didn’t use cannabis. And being over 35 and using cannabis increased the risk of PICU treatment 2.5x on compared to non-users in the same age group.

Another explanation for these results could be the self-medication hypothesis – the idea that people are using cannabis to help manage their symptoms and then deteriorate when it is taken away. However, while most clinical studies have found that cannabis  can lead to temporary mood improvement and less negative symptoms (e.g., speaking less, lack of motivation, feeling unable to experience pleasure, having fewer social interactions), it also tends to make positive symptoms of psychosis worse (e.g., hallucinations, delusions, disorganised thinking, erratic or agitated behaviour), and it is generally the positive symptoms that lead to a person requiring transfer to a PICU.(5) That being said, there is also evidence, such as from case studies, that a minority of people with psychosis do in fact improve while using cannabis,(6) showing the  complexity of the interactions between cannabis and mental health.

While this research study wasn’t able to directly measure cannabis withdrawal symptoms, by focussing on the specific time period when cannabis withdrawal symptoms peak, they were able to make a significant association with needing more aggressive care. But how can we reduce this burden for patients?

What’s next?

There are currently no medicines approved for treating cannabis withdrawal. One possibility could be replacement therapy, similar to nicotine replacement for tobacco withdrawal. There have been multiple studies on treating cannabis withdrawal with cannabis receptor agonists (i.e., cannabis-derivatives and drugs that act on the brain like cannabis) (7), and there have been some examples of people using these off-label.(3) However, no clinical trials of cannabis replacement therapy have been conducted in people with severe mental health problems. In addition, the adverse effects of such treatments would likely be worse in people with psychiatric disorders, with multiple studies showing that people with mental health conditions like schizophrenia experience worsening symptoms with cannabis use.(8, 9)

The authors conclude that future research should focus on finding safe and effective treatments for cannabis withdrawal that are suitable for people with severe mental health disorders. In the meantime, clinicians working with people in acute psychiatric care should be mindful of the possibility of cannabis withdrawal.

Article by Lucy Chester

References

1. Malik A, Shetty H, Oliver D, Reilly TJ, Di Forti M, McGuire P, et al. Cannabis Withdrawal and Psychiatric Intensive Care. JAMA Psychiatry. 2025.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA2013.
3. Connor JP, Stjepanović D, Budney AJ, Le Foll B, Hall WD. Clinical management of cannabis withdrawal. Addiction. 2022;117(7):2075-95.
4. Chesney E, Reilly TJ, Scott F, Slimani I, Sarma A, Kornblum D, et al. Psychosis associated with cannabis withdrawal: systematic review and case series. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2024:1-12.
5. Schwarcz G, Karajgi B, McCarthy R. Synthetic Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Dronabinol) Can Improve the Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2009;29(3).
6. Henquet C, van Os J, Kuepper R, Delespaul P, Smits M, Campo JÀ, et al. Psychosis reactivity to cannabis use in daily life: an experience sampling study. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;196(6):447-53.
7. Werneck MA, Kortas GT, de Andrade AG, Castaldelli-Maia JM. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Cannabinoid Agonist Replacement Therapy for Cannabis Withdrawal Symptoms. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(12):1113-29.
8. Sideli L, Quigley H, La Cascia C, Murray RM. Cannabis Use and the Risk for Psychosis and Affective Disorders. Journal of Dual Diagnosis. 2020;16:22-42.

Didier Jutras-Aswad Lab Shines at “Explique-moi ta science”

Imagine trying to explain complex science in just five minutes – that’s exactly what our brilliant students and postdocs did at the first “Explique-moi ta science” event on May 20! Held at the CRCHUM amphitheater, this event was a fantastic opportunity for researchers to share their work with the wider community. Representing the Didier Jutras-Aswad Laboratory were postdoctoral fellow Lucy Chester and master’s candidate Anita Abboud.

Lucy tackled the intriguing question: “It’s in the blood: Does CBD change how much THC you get from your cannabis?” Her presentation, based on a meta-analysis, revealed “that, on average, CBD actually increased the body’s exposure to THC and its active breakdown product, 11-OH-THC.”

Anita then took the stage with her master’s project, “Cannabis without the high: what does CBD actually do?” She explained, “My research looked at how CBD interacts with our body’s endocannabinoid system at common doses. Interestingly, the results suggest that simply taking more CBD doesn’t necessarily mean stronger effects, which really underscores the need for better guidance on CBD use.”

We couldn’t be prouder of Lucy and Anita for their incredible participation! And a massive round of applause for Anita, who took home the 3rd place prize!

Article by Heidar Sharafi

In 2018, 14% of the Quebec population aged 15 and over reported using cannabis (1). This situation is evolving rapidly: in 2024, 6 years after the legalization of cannabis for non-medical use in Canada, just over 18% of this same population had used cannabis in the last 12 months before the survey (2).

While it is recognized that cannabis use generally has few adverse effects on the vast majority of the population, some people are at greater risk of developing deleterious health effects. High-risk use is often associated with male gender, lower socio-economic status and less favorable health indices, lower levels of education, and patterns of use where frequency and duration are important (3-5). Adverse effects include reduced overall ability to function, mental health disorders, motor vehicle accidents and cannabis dependence (6). People predisposed to certain mental health disorders, such as psychotic disorders, are more at risk or unmasking them if their use of cannabis becomes frequent and if the products that they use contain a high level of THC (7,8).

Cannabis use following psychotic symptoms is sometimes continued in some people, and the understanding of the factors involved in maintaining this habit is not fully established. However, certain factors have been identified as favoring cannabis use in general, such as the desire to reduce stress, social isolation, peer pressure or a lack of information about the side effects of cannabis use and the concentration of THC in the products consumed (9). Whether and how these behaviors (and many others) have an impact on the lives of adults living with a psychotic disorder remains to be explained, so that we can offer services that are adapted to their needs and reflect their reality.

The COMPREHENSION project, set up in our laboratory with the financial support of the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS), is looking into this question by setting up a qualitative study. In contrast to the quantitative approach, this research design attempts to understand a specific human-related phenomenon or social reality by collecting pieces of information in a systematic fashion using discussions, observations and data collecting, usually in the form of focus groups. This allows us to answer questions such as Why and How, which, in the context of this study, fits with the desire to grasp the nature of certain behaviors, rather than to answer a specific question. In order to carry out this study, interviews will be conducted with individuals who use cannabis and have had a psychotic episode. To take the idea a step further and gain a better understanding of the factors surrounding their situations, interviews will also be conducted with one of their close relatives: this will provide a better comprehension of the various biological, psychological and social factors involved. The COMPREHENSION project is being built with the help of people with lived experience (PWLE) and their families. In an effort to offer results that will directly benefit this population, in addition to responding to the interviews that will constitute the database, they will participate in the production of the interview guide, and throughout the project, will be encouraged to share their opinions on the course of the study. By including people with experiential knowledge, the project ensures that individuals can participate as experts of their own situation and have a concrete impact on issues that affect them directly.

Article by Alexis Doucet

References

1. Statistics Canada. National Cannabis Survey, first quarter 2019 Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2019 [Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/190502/dq190502a- eng.pdf?st=TQEzeqzW.
2. Institut national de santé publique du Québec. (2025, 5 mai). Consommation de cannabis chez la population générale. In Substances psychoactives – Cannabis. Repéré à https://www.inspq.qc.ca/substances-psychoactives/cannabis/consommation-population-generale
3. Fischer B, Robinson T, Bullen C, Curran V, Jutras-Aswad D, Medina-Mora ME, et al. Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG) for reducing health harms from non-medical cannabis use: A comprehensive evidence and recommendations update. Int J Drug Policy. 2022 Jan;99 DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103381.
4. Institut de la statistique du Québec. l’Enquête québécoise sur le cannabis (EQC 2019) Quebec: Gouvernement du Québec; 2020 [Available from: https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/fichier/enquete- quebecoise-sur-le-cannabis-2019-la-consommation-de-cannabis-et-les-perceptions-des- quebecois-portrait-et-comparaison-avec-ledition-de-2018.pdf.
5. Fischer B, Russell C, Rehm J, Leece P. Assessing the public health impact of cannabis legalization in Canada. Journal of Public Health. 2019;41(2):412–21 DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy090.
6. Roterman Mea. Analysis of trends in the prevalence of cannabis use and related metrics in Canada. Health Reports. 2019;30 (6):3-13 DOI: 10.25318/82-003-x201900600001-eng.
7. Wittchen H-U, Behrendt S, Höfler M, Perkonigg A, Rehm J, Lieb R, et al. A typology of cannabis- related problems among individuals with repeated illegal drug use in the first three decades of life: Evidence for heterogeneity and different treatment needs. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.02.012.
8. Vassos E, Sham P, Kempton M, Trotta A, Stilo SA, Gayer-Anderson C, et al. The Maudsley environmental risk score for psychosis. Psychol Med, 2020;50(13):2213-20 DOI: 10.1017/S0033291719002319.
9. Patel R, Wilson R, Jackson R, Ball M, Shetty H, Broadbent M, et al. Association of cannabis use with hospital admission and antipsychotic treatment failure in first episode psychosis: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009888 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009888.

Although many more traditional mental health and public health interventions and prevention strategies exist, some of which have repeatedly demonstrated their effectiveness (1,2), the vast majority of these digital tools remain under-utilized by the population that could benefit from them. There are many reasons for this (financial, socio-economic, shortage of clinical staff, stigmatization) (3), and the scientific community has done little to investigate these interventions.

Thus, mobile health interventions are emerging as a modern, accessible alternative whose growing popularity is explained by their accessibility and ease of approach, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, numerous systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the subject have been published over the past decade (4,5). Mobile health interventions could be defined as any medical or public health intervention deployed in digital format via a mobile device (text messages, apps), websites, digital monitoring systems, digital personal assistants as well as any other wireless device, complex or otherwise (6).

In the context of cannabis use in Quebec, several mobile applications exist or are under development with varied, evidence-based health content (informational, preventive, therapeutic, etc.). Furthermore, in the literature on recommendations for safer cannabis use, emphasis is placed on incorporating behavioral protection strategies to reduce the risks associated with cannabis use (7). An example of a behavioral strategy would be to opt for products with low THC content, or with a higher proportion of CBD than THC (8).

Finally, mobile health interventions on cannabis use would be even more relevant for reaching young adults who report a preference for virtual approaches (9,10). It is in this precise context that two pilot randomized controlled trials of two mobile applications are emerging: “Cannabis Harm-reducing Application to Manage Practices Safely (CHAMPS)” and “ICanChange” (ICC).

The first application aims to develop methods for reducing the harm associated with cannabis use, while the second application aims to reduce cannabis use. The main aim of both research projects is to measure the feasibility of this type of intervention in a young population aged 18 to 35 who have had a first psychotic episode. Other types of non-interventional but observational mobile health initiatives are also emerging. One of these, called TRICCHOME, is due to start in January 2025. It will paint a realistic and detailed picture of cannabis use among young adults who consume cannabis at least once a week via a mobile application. Therefore, mobile health is constantly evolving and takes many forms. It is also opening several areas of opportunity for cannabis research by dematerializing resources, offering more accessible interventions and capturing key data.

To find out more and follow the progress of the above-mentioned projects, we invite you to visit our website and social networks.

Article by Amani Mahroug

References

1. Singh, V., Kumar, A., & Gupta, S. (2022). Mental health prevention and promotion—A narrative review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 898009.

2. Breedvelt, Josefien JF, et al. “A systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions.” European Journal of Public Health3 (2020): 510-516

3. Kerridge BT, Mauro PM, Chou SP, Saha TD, Pickering RP, Fan AZ, et al. Predictors of treatment utilization and barriers to treatment utilization among individuals with lifetime cannabis use disorder in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend.Dec 01, 2017;181:223-228.

4. Perski O, Hébert ET, Naughton F, Hekler EB, Brown J, Businelle MS. Technology‐mediated just‐in‐time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) to reduce harmful substance use: a systematic review. Addiction. 2022 May;117(5):1220-41.

5. Lehtimaki, S., Martic, J., Wahl, B., Foster, K. T., & Schwalbe, N. (2021). Evidence on digital mental health interventions for adolescents and young people: systematic overview. JMIR mental health, 8(4), e25847.

6. WHO 2017 16. World Health Organization. Global Diffusion of eHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable. (World Health Organization, 2017).

7. Côté, J., Chicoine, G., Vinette, B., Auger, P., Rouleau, G., Fontaine, G., & Jutras-Aswad, D. (2024). Digital Interventions for Recreational Cannabis Use Among Young Adults: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Behavior Change Technique Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e55031.

8. Fischer, B., Robinson, T., Bullen, C., Curran, V., Jutras-Aswad, D., Medina-Mora, M. E., … & Hall, W. (2022). Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG) for reducing health harms from non-medical cannabis use: A comprehensive evidence and recommendations update. International Journal of Drug Policy, 99, 103381.

9. Coronado-Montoya, S., Abdel-Baki, A., Crockford, D., Côté, J., Dubreucq, S., Dyachenko, A., … & Jutras-Aswad, D. (2024). Preferences of Young Adults With Psychosis for Cannabis-Focused Harm Reduction Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Study: Préférences des jeunes adultes souffrant de psychose pour les interventions de réduction des méfaits axées sur le cannabis: une étude transversale. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 07067437241242395.

10. Tatar, O., Abdel-Baki, A., Dyachenko, A., Bakouni, H., Bahremand, A., Tibbo, P. G., … & Jutras-Aswad, D. (2023). Evaluating preferences for online psychological interventions to decrease cannabis use in young adults with psychosis: An observational study. Psychiatry research, 326, 115276.

Canada’s Standardised THC Unit?

Since recreational cannabis first began being sold legally in Canada in 2018, the range of products on offer has expanded massively. Not only is there more choice than ever in terms of types of products and ways of using them, but also in terms of the levels of the active component, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The trend both in Canada and internationally is for stronger, more potent cannabis products, which means higher levels of THC.(Hammond et al., 2022) But research has shown that most consumers are not familiar with THC levels, nor with what constitutes a ‘low’ or ‘high’ dose of THC.(Leos-Toro et al., 2020; Lineham et al., 2023) This can lead to people accidentally over-consuming, resulting in unwanted side-effects and negative health consequences.

A recent paper by Shea Wood and colleagues published in the International Journal of Drug Policy presents the idea of adopting a standardised THC unit in Canada.(Wood et al., 2024) The standard Canadian THC unit recommended by the authors is 2.5 mg, which research suggests would be enough to produce a ‘high’.(Kleinloog et al., 2014) This dose also follows suggestions of selecting a standard unit that is low enough to be unlikely to cause serious side effects in new cannabis users, who are likely to have low tolerance to THC and a greater need for guidance.(Chester et al., 2020) The aim of using a standard THC unit would be to better inform consumers and empower them to make evidence-based decisions in their product choice and consumption of cannabis. A similar standard THC unit is already used by cannabis researchers, but there is still a lot to consider before adopting it across the Canadian cannabis market.

Currently, cannabis sold in Canada is labelled with the amounts of THC as either a concentration or amount per dose, as well as the total amount per container.(Government of Canada, 2024) However, there is a lot of inconsistency in labelling between different types of products and between different provinces, which can make it harder for consumers to relate the THC numbers to how strong the product is. The use of a standard unit, Wood and their colleagues argue, would help people to understand the strength of a cannabis product, making it easier for consumers to predict how it will affect them. By adding how much of a product contains a standard unit, for example 1ml of vape fluid or 2 pieces of an edible, consumers could decide on how they use a product beforehand, rather than trying to titrate their use during consumption. It could also make it simpler to monitor market trends and estimate how much THC the population is using over time, and how the potency of cannabis products themselves are changing.

One key issue is how to apply a single THC unit to all types of cannabis products, regardless of how they’re used. For example, THC is usually less well absorbed by the body when it’s eaten compared to when it’s smoked or vaped, meaning less reaches the brain. Wood and colleagues reason that even less of the THC in edible products is absorbed, the effects balance out because more THC is converted to 11-hydroxy-THC, which is equally or more psychoactive than THC. However, the authors note that more research is needed to better understand how the THC in different types of cannabis affects people, especially since there are many other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-8-THC, that also differ between products.

Choosing and implementing a Canadian THC unit will require us to consider many factors, including how much THC can cause health problems if used frequently over a long period of time, and how the standardised unit would fit into current public health guidelines and policy. There are also other experts who maintain that the current method of measuring THC in milligrams can meet all of the same needs as the proposed standard unit. Should a standard THC unit be adopted in Canada, a long-term public education campaign will be required to teach consumers what a THC unit represents and how it may differ between products. Ultimately, any decision taken must meet the central purpose of the Cannabis Act, “to protect public health and public safety”.(Government of Canada, 2018)

Article by Lucy Chester

References

Chester, L. A., Chesney, E., Oliver, D., Wilson, J., & Englund, A. (2020). How experimental cannabinoid studies will inform the standardized THC unit. Addiction, 115(7), 1217-1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14959

Government of Canada. (2018). Cannabis Act (S. C. 2018, c. 16). Retrieved 20/11/2024 16:50 from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-24.5/

Government of Canada. (2024, 30/01/2024). How to read and understand a cannabis product label. Retrieved 20/11/2024 16:05 from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/personal-use/how-read-understand-cannabis-product-label.html

Hammond, D., Goodman, S., Wadsworth, E., Freeman, T. P., Kilmer, B., Schauer, G., Pacula, R. L., & Hall, W. (2022). Trends in the use of cannabis products in Canada and the USA, 2018 – 2020: Findings from the International Cannabis Policy Study. Int J Drug Policy, 105, 103716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103716

Kleinloog, D., Roozen, F., De Winter, W., Freijer, J., & Van Gerven, J. (2014). Profiling the subjective effects of Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol using visual analogue scales. In International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (Vol. 23, pp. 245-256).

Leos-Toro, C., Fong, G. T., Meyer, S. B., & Hammond, D. (2020). Cannabis labelling and consumer understanding of THC levels and serving sizes. Drug Alcohol Depend, 208, 107843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107843

Lineham, J., Wadsworth, E., & Hammond, D. (2023). Self-reported THC content and associations with perceptions of feeling high among cannabis consumers. Drug Alcohol Rev, 42(5), 1142-1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13664

Wood, S., Gabrys, R., Freeman, T., & Hammond, D. (2024). Canada’s THC unit: Applications for the legal cannabis market. International Journal of Drug Policy, 128, 104457. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104457

The use of non-therapeutic cannabis in the context of epilepsy and its health implications

The use of cannabis among people with epilepsy is a growing concern. Approximately 50% of individuals with epilepsy consume cannabis non-therapeutically and without the supervision of a healthcare professional. The majority of scientific studies suggest that the anti-seizure effects attributed to cannabis are linked to CBD at very high doses, with robust evidence to date primarily involving pediatric populations with very specific epileptic syndromes. While some uncertain data suggest that THC might influence the intensity and frequency of seizures in certain populations, the supporting evidence remains limited, as most studies have been conducted on products containing predominantly CBD and very little THC. Furthermore, some studies mention that the neurocognitive negative impacts of cannabis are primarily due to THC.

Given the significant number of people with epilepsy who have cognitive and mental health issues, or who are predisposed to developing them, it is necessary to evaluate the prevalence and patterns of non-medical cannabis use, as well as its correlational association with cognitive and mental health in the context of epilepsy. The results of this research will have significant implications for the clinical management of patients and public health policies.

In collaboration with the research laboratory of Dr. Dang Khoa Nguyen, a neuro-epileptologist at CHUM, our research team is conducting a study aimed at providing evidence on the effects of non-therapeutic cannabis use on mental and cognitive health in the context of epilepsy. This study uses surveys and neuropsychological assessments. Our preliminary results show that, over the past 12 months, 42% of men and 19% of women have consumed non-medical cannabis. Among them, 72% reported consuming cannabis containing exclusively THC, more THC than CBD, or equal amounts of THC and CBD. Furthermore, respondents felt poorly or not at all informed about the benefits (72%) and risks (71%) to their health, highlighting the need to address the current knowledge gaps surrounding non-medical cannabis use among people with epilepsy.

This study will enable concerned individuals to make informed choices, considering the potential risks and benefits of non-medical cannabis use.

The advancements of our research will be published on our website, in the “News” section.

Article by Daphné Citherlet

What do people with psychosis want in cannabis harm reduction interventions?

Up to 60% of young people with psychosis uses cannabis, which is associated with significantly poorer clinical and psychosocial outcomes. While existing cannabis interventions typically focus on abstinence or reduction, effective interventions remain scarce, often hindered by low engagement or retention rates. There is a growing demand for harm reduction interventions that can benefit individuals with persistent cannabis use, though few exist for this population. Integrating patient preferences into intervention design could enhance intervention engagement and effectiveness, though this remains understudied for cannabis interventions tailored for people with psychosis.

To address this knowledge gap, our research team conducted a sophisticated survey including two discrete choice experiments among 89 young people with psychosis who used cannabis across Canada, published in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry this month (1). Study findings showed a preference for cannabis harm reduction interventions that were brief, technology-based and which included post-intervention boosters (particularly shorter ones). Acceptability and preference for other intervention characteristics (e.g., psychological approach used, preferred intervention aims, preferences for technology-based interventions) were also assessed in this study.

This study is one of the first to document patient preferences for cannabis harm reduction interventions. These results informed the development of CHAMPS, a brief, technology-based, cannabis harm reduction intervention tailored for this population recently developed by our team; CHAMPS is currently undergoing evaluation in a pilot randomized controlled trial (2). These survey findings can similarly guide the design of future harm reduction interventions for this population.

Article by Stephanie Coronado-Montoya

References

1 Coronado-Montoya, S., Abdel-Baki, A., Crockford, D., Côté, J., Dubreucq, S., Dyachenko, A., Fischer, B., Lecomte, T., L’Heureux, S., Ouellet-Plamondon, C., Roy, M.-A., Tibbo, P., Villeneuve, M., & Jutras-Aswad, D. Preferences of Young Adults With Psychosis for Cannabis-Focused Harm Reduction Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Study: Préférences des jeunes adultes souffrant de psychose pour les interventions de réduction des méfaits axées sur le cannabis : une étude transversale. 0(0), 07067437241242395. https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437241242395

2 Coronado-Montoya, S., Abdel-Baki, A., Côté, J., Crockford, D., Dubreucq, S., Fischer, B., Lachance-Touchette, P., Lecomte, T., L’Heureux, S., Ouellet-Plamondon, C., Roy, M.-A., Tatar, O., Tibbo, P., Villeneuve, M., Wittevrongel, A., & Jutras-Aswad, D. (2023). Evaluation of a cannabis harm reduction intervention for people with first-episode psychosis: Protocol for a pilot multi-centric randomized trial JMIR Research Protocols, 12, e53094. https://doi.org/10.2196/53094