[Screening tools for cannabis use disorders and their adaptation to DSM-5: A literature review].
Encephale. 2020 May 28;:
Authors: Artigaud L, Fener C, Bisch M, Schwan R, Schwitzer T, De Ternay J, Adamson SJ, Rolland B, Laprévote V
OBJECTIVES: Cannabis use is widespread in France, particularly among adolescents and young adults, and can induce severe somatic, psychiatric and social consequences. Early identification and appropriate care of cannabis use disorders thus constitute a major public health issue. Standardized questionnaires based on patient self-reporting are recognized as the best option for identifying cannabis use disorders because of their reliability and simplicity.
METHODS: We conducted a narrative literature review on cannabis use assessment tools on PubMed and selected cannabis-specific questionnaires, validated for adolescent and/or adult populations, from scientific articles in English or French between 1995 and 2010.
RESULTS: Sixteen questionnaires were found according to the inclusion criteria. The CAGE-cannabis, the CAST, the CUDIT and its revised version the CUDIT-R, the PUM and the SDS are the only ones that have good characteristics for a short screening tool adapted to daily clinical practice, namely to be brief (fewer than 10 questions) and quick handover (less than 10minutes). Only the CAST has been validated in French, and the CUDIT-R is currently being validated. In the DSM-5, diagnoses of abuse or addiction have been grouped into a single diagnosis of cannabis use disorders with different levels of severity. It is relevant that tools used for screening take into account these new diagnostic concepts. The CUDIT-R is currently the only one to be validated based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
CONCLUSION: Among the many questionnaires available, few are suited for daily clinical practice in France because of their complexity, their long duration or the absence of a validated French translation. The CUDIT-R has good psychometric characteristics, is simple to use, and has been validated according to the criteria of DSM-5. These questionnaires are obviously not a substitute for a clinical diagnosis and must be followed by a specialist’s evaluation. However, they remain an interesting mediation, encouraging a patient’s awareness and commitment to care.
PMID: 32475691 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]
Source: ncbi 2