# A Culturally Grounded Virtual Program Reduced Cannabis and Alcohol Use in Native American Young Adults

> **Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD (ABFM Board Certified, MA Lic. #240562, NPI: 1962722637)
> **Publisher:** CED Clinic (https://cedclinic.com)
> **Canonical URL:** https://cedclinic.com/post/
> **Published:** 2026-09-26T21:00:00-04:00 | **Last Modified / Clinically Audited:** 2026-09-28T10:43:55-04:00
> **Clinical Summary:** A JAMA Network Open RCT found a culturally grounded virtual program reduced cannabis and alcohol use in Native American young adults. Dr. Caplan reviews it.

---

CED Clinical Relevance #80 Clinical Evidence Update A randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Network Open tested two virtual, culturally grounded interventions in 541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults, a population with elevated rates of substance use disorders and psychological distress that is rarely represented in [cannabis and addiction](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-gateway-hypothesis-research-myth-or-reality/) trials. Its national virtual recruitment model, 12-month follow-up, and head-to-head comparison of two active interventions place it above the newsjack threshold, though both arms were active treatments rather than a placebo or waitlist control.

Clinical Insight | CED Clinic
American Indian and Alaska Native individuals report higher rates of substance use disorders and psychological distress than other racial and ethnic groups, yet culturally grounded, evidence-based programs addressing this gap remain scarce, particularly for the roughly 70 percent of this population living in urban areas away from tribal reservations. A new randomized clinical trial tested whether a virtual, culturally grounded program called TACUNA, built around traditional teachings and a wellness circle, could outperform a comparison virtual program on cannabis, alcohol, and opioid-related outcomes in emerging adults ages 18 to 25. Both arms were active interventions, not a passive control, which makes the trial a genuine test of whether cultural grounding adds measurable value on top of standard substance use education delivered virtually.

Substance Use DisordersHealth EquityCannabis UseRandomized Clinical TrialTelehealth

AudienceClinicians treating American Indian and Alaska Native patients, addiction medicine and primary care physicians serving urban Native communities, telehealth and behavioral health program directors, and cannabis clinicians working with young adult patients who also use alcohol
Primary TopicA randomized clinical trial testing two virtual, culturally grounded interventions for substance use, including cannabis, alcohol, and opioid-related risk factors, among 541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults ages 18 to 25, published in JAMA Network Open in 2026
Source[Read the study in JAMA Network Open](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.27878)

Table of Contents

- [A Culturally Grounded Virtual Program Reduced Cannabis and Alcohol Use in Native American Young Adults](#A_Culturally_Grounded_Virtual_Program_Reduced_Cannabis_and_Alcohol_Use_in_Native_American_Young_Adults)[How to Read a Trial That Compares Two Active Programs, Not One Program Against Nothing](#How_to_Read_a_Trial_That_Compares_Two_Active_Programs_Not_One_Program_Against_Nothing)[A Four-Step Reading Frame](#A_Four-Step_Reading_Frame)
- [The Same Study Can Mean Different Things Depending on the Question Being Asked](#The_Same_Study_Can_Mean_Different_Things_Depending_on_the_Question_Being_Asked)[A Program Grounded in Culture Showed an Added Edge](#A_Program_Grounded_in_Culture_Showed_an_Added_Edge)
- [Cultural Grounding as an Active Ingredient, Not Just a Preference](#Cultural_Grounding_as_an_Active_Ingredient_Not_Just_a_Preference)
- [Reaching a Population Research Has Long Underserved](#Reaching_a_Population_Research_Has_Long_Underserved)
- [Two Active Arms, No Untreated Comparison](#Two_Active_Arms_No_Untreated_Comparison)
- [Proof That Virtual Delivery Can Work for This Population](#Proof_That_Virtual_Delivery_Can_Work_for_This_Population)
- [Frequency and Quantity Both Matter, and They Moved Differently](#Frequency_and_Quantity_Both_Matter_and_They_Moved_Differently)
- [A Model Worth Scaling Cautiously](#A_Model_Worth_Scaling_Cautiously)
- [A Case for Continued Investment in Native-Specific Trials](#A_Case_for_Continued_Investment_in_Native-Specific_Trials)
- [Frequently Asked Questions](#Frequently_Asked_Questions)[Related](#Related)

# A Culturally Grounded Virtual Program Reduced Cannabis and Alcohol Use in Native American Young Adults

A randomized clinical trial of 541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults compared two virtual interventions: TACUNA, built around culturally grounded workshops and a wellness circle, and a comparison opioid-education wellness workshop. Both groups reported less frequent cannabis use and fewer positive screens for alcohol and cannabis use disorder over 12 months. Only the TACUNA group also reported reduced quantity of alcohol and cannabis use, less time around peers using cannabis and heroin, and greater reductions in anxiety.

What This Study Teaches Us
This trial shows that a virtual, culturally grounded intervention can be successfully delivered to a population, urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults, that has historically had limited access to evidence-based, culturally relevant substance use programs. It also shows that cultural grounding was not just a delivery preference but was associated with additional measurable benefit on alcohol and cannabis quantity and on anxiety, beyond what a comparison wellness workshop achieved.

Why This Matters
Addiction medicine and primary care clinicians increasingly serve patients who cannot easily access in-person, culturally specific care, whether because of geography, distrust of the healthcare system, or a shortage of Native-specific programming. This trial demonstrates that virtual recruitment and delivery can reach a historically underserved population at meaningful scale, 541 participants recruited nationwide, and that a culturally grounded model can produce outcomes a generic wellness comparison program did not fully match, including reduced alcohol and cannabis quantity and reduced anxiety.

Study SnapshotStudy TypeRandomized clinical trial, two active virtual intervention armsPopulation541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults, ages 18 to 25 (mean age 22.1, SD 2.2); 451 (83.2%) femaleEligibilityLiving in a US urban area (not a reservation or rancheria), self-identified American Indian or Alaska Native, no opioid use disorder, English speakingRecruitment WindowDecember 1, 2020, to October 27, 2023, nationwide virtual recruitmentInterventions ComparedTACUNA (Traditions and Connections for Urban Native Americans): 3 culturally grounded workshops plus a wellness circle, versus an opioid-education Health and Wellness Cultural (HWC) workshop as the comparison/usual-care armFollow-UpBaseline, 3, 6, and 12 months; final follow-up completed January 28, 2025Primary OutcomeFrequency of opioid, alcohol, and cannabis useSecondary OutcomesConsequences of alcohol and drug use, mental health (depression, anxiety), cultural connection, and peer norms/influenceCannabis FrequencyBoth arms: decreased frequency of cannabis use (TACUNA B=-0.44, SE=0.20; HWC B=-0.54, SE=0.21)Cannabis and Alcohol Use Disorder ScreensBoth arms: decreased rates of positive screens for alcohol use disorder (TACUNA B=-0.03, SE=0.01; HWC B=-0.02, SE=0.01) and cannabis use disorder (TACUNA B=-0.02, SE=0.01; HWC B=-0.03, SE=0.01)TACUNA-Only FindingsDecreased frequency (B=-0.51, SE=0.20) and quantity (B=-0.25, SE=0.09) of alcohol use, and decreased quantity of cannabis use (B=-0.07, SE=0.03); greater decreases in time spent around peers using cannabis and heroin, and greater decreases in anxiety, compared with HWCRegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04617938JournalJAMA Network OpenPublishedAugust 3, 2026DOI10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.27878PMID42579280

Clinical Bottom Line
Both a culturally grounded program and a comparison wellness workshop, delivered entirely virtually, were associated with less frequent cannabis use and fewer positive alcohol and cannabis use disorder screens over 12 months in urban Native emerging adults. Only the culturally grounded TACUNA program was additionally associated with reduced quantity of alcohol and cannabis use, less time around peers who use cannabis and heroin, and greater reductions in anxiety.

What the Trial Tested

Researchers recruited urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults ages 18 to 25 from across the United States between December 2020 and October 2023, screening for eligibility online and excluding anyone with an existing opioid use disorder. Participants completed baseline surveys and were randomized to one of two virtual interventions.

The TACUNA arm received three culturally grounded workshops, Traditions and Connections for Urban Native Americans, plus a wellness circle. The comparison arm received an opioid-education Health and Wellness Cultural workshop, serving as the usual-care condition. Both arms completed follow-up surveys at 3, 6, and 12 months, with final follow-up data collected in January 2025.

Who Was Enrolled, and Why That Matters

The trial enrolled 541 participants with a mean age of 22.1 years; 83.2% identified as female. All lived in urban areas rather than on reservations or rancherias, a population that is both large, roughly seven in ten American Indian and Alaska Native people live in urban areas, and underrepresented in substance use research.

Virtual recruitment and delivery allowed the study team to reach this dispersed, often under-resourced population at a scale that in-person, geographically anchored programs typically cannot match.

Both Groups Reduced How Often They Used Cannabis

Participants in both the TACUNA and HWC arms reported a decreased frequency of cannabis use over the follow-up period (TACUNA B=-0.44, SE=0.20; HWC B=-0.54, SE=0.21), along with decreased rates of positive screens for both alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder.

This pattern suggests that structured virtual engagement, whether or not it is culturally specific, was associated with less frequent substance use in this population over the year of follow-up.

Only the Culturally Grounded Program Reduced Quantity of Use

The picture changed when the researchers looked at quantity rather than frequency of use. Only participants in the TACUNA arm reported decreases in frequency (B=-0.51, SE=0.20) and quantity (B=-0.25, SE=0.09) of alcohol use, and in quantity of cannabis use (B=-0.07, SE=0.03).

TACUNA participants also reported greater decreases in time spent around peers who use cannabis and heroin, and greater reductions in anxiety, compared with participants in the HWC comparison arm.

Mental Health and Peer Environment Also Shifted

Beyond substance use itself, both groups reported improvements in time spent with peers who use alcohol and prescription opioids, clinical depression and anxiety symptoms, consequences of alcohol and drug use, and peer norms around alcohol, cannabis, prescription opioid, and heroin use.

The added anxiety reduction seen specifically in the TACUNA arm suggests the cultural and community-connection elements of the program, not just the substance use content, may have contributed to participants’ wellbeing.

What the Study Authors Concluded

The authors concluded that virtual recruitment and intervention successfully reached urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults with decreased access to resources, and that both interventions were associated with reduced consequences and cannabis use.

They highlighted that only TACUNA participants showed decreases in quantity of alcohol and cannabis use, time spent around peers using cannabis and heroin, and anxiety, framing this as evidence for the value of bringing Native emerging adults together virtually to discuss substance use reduction while reconnecting with tribal community and culture.

How Strong Is This Evidence?
This is a randomized clinical trial, the strongest available design for testing whether an intervention causes a change in behavior, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04617938) and published in JAMA Network Open. It enrolled a meaningful sample, 541 participants, from a population that is difficult to recruit at scale and rarely represented in substance use trials, using a fully virtual model that reached participants across the country rather than a single geographic site. Follow-up extended to 12 months with assessments at three additional time points, giving a reasonably durable picture of whether early changes persisted, and the comparison arm was itself an active, structured intervention rather than a no-treatment control, which is a stronger test than comparing an intervention to nothing at all.

Where This Paper Deserves Skepticism
Because both arms received an active intervention rather than a waitlist or no-treatment control, this trial cannot say whether either program outperformed simply doing nothing, only that TACUNA outperformed the HWC comparison workshop on several measures. The sample was 83.2% female, which limits how confidently the findings generalize to Native emerging adult men. All outcomes were based on self-reported survey data rather than biochemically verified measures such as urine or blood testing, and the study explicitly excluded anyone with an existing opioid use disorder, so these findings cannot speak to that higher-severity population. The results reported here are regression coefficients (B) with standard errors (SE) rather than effect sizes with confidence intervals or p-values, so the precise statistical certainty behind each comparison is not fully specified in the available summary. Retention and engagement details, how many participants completed all follow-up assessments and how thoroughly each group engaged with its assigned workshops, were not specified in the material available for this review.

What This Paper Does Not Show
This trial does not show that either intervention outperforms no treatment at all, since there was no untreated control group. It does not show that these results generalize to American Indian and Alaska Native men, given the 83.2% female sample, to people living on reservations or rancherias, who were excluded by design, or to people with an existing opioid use disorder, who were also excluded. It does not identify which specific component of TACUNA, the workshops, the wellness circle, or their combination, was responsible for its added benefit over the comparison arm. It also does not establish long-term outcomes beyond the 12-month follow-up window, or confirm self-reported use reductions with biochemical testing.

How This Fits With the Broader Clinical Conversation

This trial adds to a small but growing body of research on culturally grounded, virtually delivered interventions for underserved populations, an approach that gained urgency as telehealth expanded substance use and mental health care access during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. American Indian and Alaska Native communities have long been underrepresented in substance use and [cannabis research](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-use-days-anxiety-relief-45-day-study/) relative to the scale of documented health disparities they face.

What this trial adds is a direct, randomized comparison showing that cultural grounding was associated with measurable additional benefit, not just cultural appropriateness or acceptability, when tested against a structured comparison intervention rather than no treatment. That distinction matters for clinicians and program designers deciding how to allocate limited resources for underserved populations.

Dr. Caplan’s Take

*In more than 20 years of practicing evidence-based cannabis medicine, I have seen how rarely clinical trial populations reflect the patients who actually walk into a clinic. This trial stands out because it was built, from recruitment through delivery, around a population, urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults, that is too often absent from the evidence base clinicians are asked to apply to every patient.*

*The finding that matters most to me clinically is not simply that cannabis and alcohol use went down, both arms showed that, but that the culturally grounded TACUNA program showed an added benefit on quantity of use and on anxiety compared with a real, active comparison program. That tells me cultural relevance was not incidental here; it appears to have done clinical work. For a patient population with documented disparities in both substance use and access to culturally appropriate care, that is a meaningful, if still early, signal worth building on with further trials.*

What a Careful Reader Should Take Away
In a randomized trial of 541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults, both a culturally grounded virtual program (TACUNA) and a comparison wellness workshop were associated with less frequent cannabis use and fewer positive alcohol and cannabis use disorder screens over 12 months. Only the culturally grounded program was associated with reduced quantity of alcohol and cannabis use and reduced anxiety, though the absence of a no-treatment control group and the study’s mostly female sample limit how far these findings can be generalized.

Evidence Interpretation Guide

## How to Read a Trial That Compares Two Active Programs, Not One Program Against Nothing

A headline reporting that cannabis use went down in both study arms can sound like proof that either program works.

Four checks keep this trial’s real, more specific contribution in view.

### A Four-Step Reading Frame

**Notice both arms were active treatments**There was no no-treatment or waitlist control, so the trial can only compare TACUNA against the HWC workshop, not against doing nothing.

**Separate frequency from quantity**Both groups used cannabis less often, but only the TACUNA group reduced how much alcohol and cannabis they used per occasion.

**Look past substance use to peer environment and anxiety**TACUNA participants also spent less time around peers using cannabis and heroin and showed greater anxiety reduction, suggesting broader psychosocial change.

**Consider who was studied**The sample was 83.2% female, urban, English-speaking, and excluded anyone with an existing opioid use disorder, which limits generalization.

The Research Question
Does a virtual, culturally grounded intervention (TACUNA) outperform a comparison virtual wellness workshop on cannabis, alcohol, and opioid-related outcomes among urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults?

The Patient Question
Could a virtual program that incorporates Native cultural traditions help reduce my cannabis or alcohol use more than a general wellness or education program would?

The Bottom Line
Both programs were associated with less frequent cannabis use, but only the culturally grounded program was associated with reduced quantity of alcohol and cannabis use and reduced anxiety, suggesting cultural grounding added measurable value in this trial.

CED Perspective Lens

## The Same Study Can Mean Different Things Depending on the Question Being Asked

Scientific papers rarely answer a single question. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and critics often read the same data differently. The perspectives below explore how this study looks through several evidence-based lenses.

Lens OverviewEight perspectives keep a trial where both arms improved from being read as proof that any virtual wellness program works equally well, or dismissed because there was no untreated comparison group.

#### A Program Grounded in Culture Showed an Added Edge

If you are a young American Indian or Alaska Native adult living in a city and thinking about cutting back on cannabis or alcohol, this trial found that a virtual program built around cultural traditions and community connection was associated with a bigger reduction in how much you use, not just how often, than a comparison wellness workshop.

Both programs were linked to using cannabis less often, so either type of structured virtual support may help, but the culturally grounded option showed additional benefits worth discussing with a provider or [community health](https://cedclinic.com/social-cannabis-consumption-models-book-clubs/) program.

Lens takeawayA culturally grounded virtual program was linked to greater reductions in amount of use and anxiety than a comparison program.

#### Cultural Grounding as an Active Ingredient, Not Just a Preference

For addiction medicine clinicians, this trial offers evidence that cultural relevance can function as an active treatment ingredient rather than simply a matter of patient preference or acceptability, since TACUNA outperformed a real comparison intervention on quantity of use, not just frequency.

That said, both interventions here were structured and active; this trial does not tell us how either compares to standard individual counseling or medication-assisted treatment where applicable.

Lens takeawayConsider culturally grounded, community-based programs as a genuine clinical option, not an add-on, for Native patients reducing substance use.

#### Reaching a Population Research Has Long Underserved

American Indian and Alaska Native people experience some of the largest documented disparities in substance use and mental health outcomes, yet are chronically underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly for the roughly seven in ten who live in urban areas away from tribal reservations.

This trial’s virtual, nationwide recruitment model itself is a health equity finding: it reached 541 participants from a population that geographically anchored, in-person research often cannot access at this scale.

Lens takeawayVirtual delivery can be a meaningful access tool for populations underserved by traditional research and care models.

#### Two Active Arms, No Untreated Comparison

Because both TACUNA and the HWC workshop are active interventions, this trial cannot tell us whether either one outperforms simply receiving no structured program at all. Improvement in both arms could partly reflect assessment reactivity or engagement effects common to any structured, repeated-contact study.

The reported statistics are regression coefficients and standard errors rather than fully specified effect sizes with confidence intervals, and outcomes relied on self-report rather than biochemical verification.

Lens takeawayRead this as TACUNA outperforming an active comparison, not as proof either program beats no treatment.

#### Proof That Virtual Delivery Can Work for This Population

The trial’s three-year national recruitment window and completion of 12-month follow-up through a fully virtual model demonstrates that telehealth-delivered, culturally specific programming is operationally feasible for urban Native emerging adults, a population telehealth program designers have often overlooked.

This has practical implications for behavioral health systems considering how to extend culturally competent care beyond the reach of in-person, geographically fixed programs.

Lens takeawayVirtual delivery of culturally grounded care is feasible at meaningful scale for this population.

#### Frequency and Quantity Both Matter, and They Moved Differently

The fact that both groups reduced how often they used cannabis, while only TACUNA reduced how much they used per occasion, is a useful harm-reduction distinction: lower frequency alone does not necessarily mean lower total exposure or risk if quantity per use stays the same.

TACUNA’s added reduction in peer exposure to cannabis and heroin use is also a meaningful harm-reduction signal, since peer environment is a well-established driver of substance use risk in this age group.

Lens takeawayTrack both frequency and quantity of use, and peer environment, when evaluating a substance use intervention’s real-world impact.

#### A Model Worth Scaling Cautiously

For public health programming, this trial supports investment in culturally grounded, virtually delivered substance use programs for urban Native emerging adults, a population with documented need and limited existing options.

Scaling should proceed cautiously given the mostly female sample and the absence of a no-treatment comparison arm; broader implementation would benefit from replication with a more balanced sample and longer-term outcome tracking.

Lens takeawayA promising model for underserved-population programming, but one that needs replication before broad rollout.

#### A Case for Continued Investment in Native-Specific Trials

This trial demonstrates that adequately resourced, community-partnered research with American Indian and Alaska Native populations is achievable at meaningful scale, countering the persistent underrepresentation of this population in substance use and [cannabis research funding](https://cedclinic.com/medicare-coverage-hemp-derived-products-seniors/).

Future funding priorities should include a no-treatment or standard-care comparison arm, a more balanced gender sample, and extended follow-up beyond 12 months to confirm durability of the added TACUNA effect.

Lens takeawayThis trial makes a strong case for continued, better-resourced research investment in Native-specific substance use interventions.

Join the Conversation

Have a question about how this applies to your situation? [Ask Dr. Caplan](https://benjamincaplan.com/ask-dr-caplan)

Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? [Join the forum discussion](https://cedclinic.com/interact/discussion-forums/forum/cannabis-industry/)

 
 
 [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 

 
 Physician-Led, Whole-Person Care
 A doctor who takes the time to truly understand you.
 Personal care that starts with listening and is guided by experience and ingenuity.

 
 Health, Longevity, Wellness
 One-on-One Cannabis Guidance
 Metabolic Balance
 

 
 [Leave a Message](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 [Metabolic Care](https://cedclinic.com/metabolic/metabolic-how-it-works/)
 [Medical Consulting](https://cedclinic.com/book/)
 [Cannabis Care](https://cedclinic.com/book/)
 
 

 
 [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/)
 
 

Share this Evidence Watch

[X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=A+Culturally+Grounded+Virtual+Program+Reduced+Cannabis+and+Alcohol+Use+in+Native+American+Young+Adults&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fnative-american-emerging-adults-cannabis-alcohol-virtual-trial%2F)
[LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fnative-american-emerging-adults-cannabis-alcohol-virtual-trial%2F)
[BlueSky](https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=A+Culturally+Grounded+Virtual+Program+Reduced+Cannabis+and+Alcohol+Use+in+Native+American+Young+Adults%20https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fnative-american-emerging-adults-cannabis-alcohol-virtual-trial%2F)
[Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/drcaplan/)
[Substack](https://doctorapprovedcannabis.substack.com/)
[RSS](https://cedclinic.com/feed/)

Source: [D'Amico EJ, Dickerson DL, Rodriguez A, et al. Virtual Culturally Grounded Interventions for Substance Use in Urban American Indian and Alaska Native Emerging Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(8):e2627878. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.27878. PMID: 42579280. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04617938.](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.27878)

Related Reading at CED ClinicContinue exploring the evidence[Cannabis Harm Reduction in First-Episode Psychosis: What the CHAMPS App Analysis Found](https://cedclinic.com/digital-cannabis-harm-reduction-first-episode-psychosis/)

A CED review of an exploratory analysis of a cannabis harm-reduction mobile app for young people, useful context for how psychosocial and digital interventions engage young people around cannabis use.

[Read the CHAMPS app analysis](https://cedclinic.com/digital-cannabis-harm-reduction-first-episode-psychosis/)[Minnesota Teen Cannabis Use Fell, but Major Social Disparities Persist](https://cedclinic.com/minnesota-adolescent-cannabis-use-disparities-2026/)

A CED look at persistent social disparities in adolescent cannabis use, including disparities by identity and socioeconomic status, relevant background for understanding underserved-population substance use trends.

[Read the Minnesota disparities review](https://cedclinic.com/minnesota-adolescent-cannabis-use-disparities-2026/)[Understanding Mental Health Risks of Cannabis Use Disorder in Youth](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-use-disorder-mental-health-risks-young-adults/)

A CED review of cannabis use disorder and mental health risk in young adults, including anxiety and depression, useful context for the mental health outcomes measured alongside substance use in this trial.

[Read the youth mental health review](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-use-disorder-mental-health-risks-young-adults/)

## Frequently Asked Questions

What did this trial test?

A randomized clinical trial tested two virtual interventions in 541 urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults ages 18 to 25: TACUNA, three culturally grounded workshops plus a wellness circle, versus a comparison opioid-education Health and Wellness Cultural (HWC) workshop. Outcomes included opioid, alcohol, and cannabis use tracked over 12 months.

Who was enrolled in the study?

541 participants with a mean age of 22.1 years were enrolled; 83.2% identified as female. All lived in urban US areas rather than on reservations or rancherias, self-identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, had no existing opioid use disorder, and were English speaking. Recruitment ran from December 2020 to October 2023.

Did cannabis use decrease in this trial?

Yes, in both study arms. Participants in the TACUNA group and the comparison HWC group both reported a decreased frequency of cannabis use, along with fewer positive screens for cannabis use disorder, over the 12-month follow-up.

What made the TACUNA program different from the comparison group?

Only participants in the TACUNA arm reported decreases in the quantity, not just frequency, of alcohol and cannabis use, along with less time spent around peers using cannabis and heroin and greater reductions in anxiety, compared with the HWC comparison arm.

Was there a no-treatment control group?

No. Both arms received an active intervention, TACUNA or the HWC workshop. This means the trial can show that TACUNA outperformed the comparison program on several measures, but it cannot show how either program compares to receiving no structured intervention at all.

How was the study delivered?

Entirely virtually. Both the TACUNA workshops and wellness circle and the HWC comparison workshop were delivered online, allowing the study team to recruit participants nationwide rather than from a single geographic site.

How long were participants followed?

Participants completed baseline surveys and were followed with additional surveys at 3, 6, and 12 months. Final follow-up data collection was completed on January 28, 2025.

What are the main limitations of this study?

The sample was 83.2% female, limiting generalization to men. Outcomes relied on self-report rather than biochemical verification. There was no no-treatment control group, and anyone with an existing opioid use disorder was excluded, so the findings cannot be generalized to that population.

What did the study authors conclude?

The authors concluded that virtual recruitment and intervention successfully reached urban American Indian and Alaska Native emerging adults with decreased access to resources, and that while both interventions reduced cannabis use and its consequences, only TACUNA participants showed reduced quantity of alcohol and cannabis use, reduced time around peers using cannabis and heroin, and reduced anxiety.

Where was this study published?

This study was published in JAMA Network Open on August 3, 2026 (DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.27878, PMID: 42579280) and is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04617938.

 

### Related

---

### Verification & Medical Governance

- **Lead Clinical Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD
- **Credentials:** Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM), Former CMO Canna Care Docs (250,000+ patients supervised), Founder & CMO CED Clinic & CED Foundation, Author of *The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook* (Penguin Random House).
- **Clinical Scale:** 350,000+ lifetime evaluations overseen; 81,008-patient Real-World Evidence Registry (`~/.ced_rwe_vault.db`); 125,000+ peer-reviewed study literature observatory (`http://localhost:8768/api/explorer/terminal`).
- **License Verification:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts License #240562 (https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/).
- **NPI Registry:** 1962722637 (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/provider-view/1962722637).
- **Ethics & Data Privacy:** Clinical registry observations adhere strictly to HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification (45 CFR § 164.514(b)) and criteria for secondary research exemption under 45 CFR § 46.104(d)(4).