rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Brain development differences both predict and result from adolescent substance use

Systematic ReviewStrong evidence
The takeaway

A systematic review of 38 longitudinal studies found that delayed executive functioning and emotional perception may predispose adolescents to substance use, while use itself causes further functional, structural, and cognitive deficits.

Adolescent health specialists, neurodevelopmental researchers, substance use prevention program designers

38 longitudinal studies spanning neuroimaging, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology

What the researchers found

High-quality evidence showed that delayed or irregular neurodevelopment in executive functioning, particularly emotional perception, may predispose young people to higher frequency substance use. The review also found evidence of functional, structural, and cognitive deficits following substance use, with harm potentially dependent on frequency and recovery potentially dependent on duration of use.

Why it matters

Separating what comes before substance use (predisposing brain differences) from what comes after (use-caused damage) is essential for designing effective prevention. If certain neurodevelopmental patterns predict who will use substances, early identification and intervention become possible.

The numbers in context

38 longitudinal studies included; 22 neuroimaging studies, 2 neurophysiological, 22 neuropsychological; age range 10-25 years; five databases searched

How the study worked

Systematic review searching five databases for longitudinal studies examining neuropsychological, neuroimaging, or neurophysiological predictors and consequences of cannabis and illicit substance use in individuals aged 10-25. Yielded 38 eligible studies covering 22 neuroimaging, 2 neurophysiological, and 22 neuropsychological findings.

What this study cannot tell us

Heterogeneous study designs and measures across the 38 included studies. Most studies combined cannabis with other substances, making it difficult to isolate cannabis-specific effects. Longitudinal designs varied in follow-up duration.

How to read the evidence

Systematic review of longitudinal studies published in a high-impact journal (The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health), providing strong evidence for the bidirectional relationship.

When this study was published

Published in 2021.

The bigger picture

The bidirectional relationship between brain development and substance use creates a potential vicious cycle: developmental differences increase vulnerability to use, and use further disrupts development. Breaking this cycle requires addressing both the predisposing factors and the substance use itself.

Questions still open

  • Can early screening for executive functioning delays identify at-risk youth before substance initiation? How much recovery is possible after cessation, and what determines the extent of recovery?

Common questions

Do brain differences come before or after substance use?
Both. The review found that pre-existing differences in executive functioning and emotional perception predispose adolescents to substance use, and substance use then causes additional functional, structural, and cognitive deficits.
Can the brain recover after stopping?
There was evidence of recovery potential, but it appeared dependent on the duration of use. Shorter periods of use were associated with better recovery prospects, while longer use may cause more persistent damage.

Read the original research

Neuropsychological and neurophysiological predictors and consequences of cannabis and illicit substance use during neurodevelopment: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.

The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 5(8), 589-604

Citation

Debenham, Jennifer; Birrell, Louise; Champion, Katrina; Lees, Briana; Yücel, Murat; Newton, Nicola. (2021). Neuropsychological and neurophysiological predictors and consequences of cannabis and illicit substance use during neurodevelopment: a systematic review of longitudinal studies.. The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 5(8), 589-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00051-1

Explore the wider topic