AIMS: To assess the reliability and validity of self-reported cannabis dose and potency measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study comparing self-reports with objective measures of amount of cannabis and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration. SETTING: Ecological study with assessments at participants' homes or in a coffee shop. PARTICIPANTS: Young adult frequent cannabis users (n = 106) from the Dutch Cannabis Dependence (CanDep) study. MEASUREMENTS: The objectively measured amount of cannabis per joint (dose in grams) was compared with self-reported estimates using a prompt card and average number of joints made from 1 g of cannabis. In addition, objectively assessed THC concentration in the participant's cannabis was compared with self-reported level of intoxication, subjective estimate of cannabis potency and price per gram of cannabis. FINDINGS: Objective estimates of doses per joint (0.07-0.88 g/joint) and cannabis potency (1.1-24.7%) varied widely. Self-reported measures of dose were imprecise, but at group level, average dose per joint was estimated accurately with the number of joints made from 1 g [limit of agreement (LOA) = -0.02 g, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.29; 0.26], whereas the prompt card resulted in serious underestimation (LOA = 0.14 g, 95% CI = -0.10; 0.37). THC concentration in cannabis was associated with subjective potency ['average' 3.77% (P = 0.002) and '(very) strong' 5.13% more THC (P < 0.001) than '(very) mild' cannabis] and with cannabis price (about 1% increase in THC concentration per euro spent on 1 g of cannabis, P < 0.001), but not with level of intoxication. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report measures relating to cannabis use appear at best to be associated weakly with objective measures. Of the self-report measures, number of joints per gram, cannabis price and subjective potency have at least some validity.
AIMS: To assess the reliability and validity of self-reported cannabis dose and potency measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study comparing self-reports with objective measures of amount of cannabis and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration. SETTING: Ecological study with assessments at participants' homes or in a coffee shop. PARTICIPANTS: Young adult frequent cannabis users (n = 106) from the Dutch Cannabis Dependence (CanDep) study. MEASUREMENTS: The objectively measured amount of cannabis per joint (dose in grams) was compared with self-reported estimates using a prompt card and average number of joints made from 1 g of cannabis. In addition, objectively assessed THC concentration in the participant's cannabis was compared with self-reported level of intoxication, subjective estimate of cannabis potency and price per gram of cannabis. FINDINGS: Objective estimates of doses per joint (0.07-0.88 g/joint) and cannabis potency (1.1-24.7%) varied widely. Self-reported measures of dose were imprecise, but at group level, average dose per joint was estimated accurately with the number of joints made from 1 g [limit of agreement (LOA) = -0.02 g, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.29; 0.26], whereas the prompt card resulted in serious underestimation (LOA = 0.14 g, 95% CI = -0.10; 0.37). THC concentration in cannabis was associated with subjective potency ['average' 3.77% (P = 0.002) and '(very) strong' 5.13% more THC (P < 0.001) than '(very) mild' cannabis] and with cannabis price (about 1% increase in THC concentration per euro spent on 1 g of cannabis, P < 0.001), but not with level of intoxication. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report measures relating to cannabis use appear at best to be associated weakly with objective measures. Of the self-report measures, number of joints per gram, cannabis price and subjective potency have at least some validity.
Authors: Mallory J E Loflin; Brian D Kiluk; Marilyn A Huestis; Will M Aklin; Alan J Budney; Kathleen M Carroll; Deepak Cyril D'Souza; Robert H Dworkin; Kevin M Gray; Deborah S Hasin; Dustin C Lee; Bernard Le Foll; Frances R Levin; Joshua A Lile; Barbara J Mason; Aimee L McRae-Clark; Ivan Montoya; Erica N Peters; Tatiana Ramey; Dennis C Turk; Ryan Vandrey; Roger D Weiss; Eric C Strain Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Patrick M Carter; James A Cranford; Anne Buu; Maureen A Walton; Marc A Zimmerman; Jason Goldstick; Quyen Ngo; Rebecca M Cunningham Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Erin E Bonar; Jason E Goldstick; R Lorraine Collins; James A Cranford; Rebecca M Cunningham; Stephen T Chermack; Frederic C Blow; Maureen A Walton Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Heather McBrien; Candice Luo; Nitika Sanger; Laura Zielinski; Meha Bhatt; Xi Ming Zhu; David C Marsh; Lehana Thabane; Zainab Samaan Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-11-19
Authors: Gabriel Andreuccetti; Yu Ye; Jaewook Kang; Rachael Korcha; Jane A Witbrodt; Heraclito B Carvalho; Cheryl J Cherpitel Journal: Contemp Drug Probl Date: 2017-06-30
Authors: Simon Haroutounian; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Joletta Belton; Fiona M Blyth; Louisa Degenhardt; Marta Di Forti; Christopher Eccleston; David P Finn; Nanna B Finnerup; Emma Fisher; Alexandra E Fogarty; Ian Gilron; Andrea G Hohmann; Eija Kalso; Elliot Krane; Mohammed Mohiuddin; R Andrew Moore; Michael Rowbotham; Nadia Soliman; Mark Wallace; Nantthasorn Zinboonyahgoon; Andrew S C Rice Journal: Pain Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Hugo López-Pelayo; Silvia Matrai; Mercè Balcells-Olivero; Eugènia Campeny; Fleur Braddick; Matthijs G Bossong; Olga S Cruz; Paolo Deluca; Geert Dom; Daniel Feingold; Tom P Freeman; Pablo Guzman; Chandni Hindocha; Brian C Kelly; Nienke Liebregts; Valentina Lorenzetti; Jakob Manthey; João Matias; Clara Oliveras; Maria Teresa Pons; Jürgen Rehm; Moritz Rosenkranz; Zoe Swithenbank; Luc van Deurse; Julian Vicente; Mike Vuolo; Marcin Wojnar; Antoni Gual Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.157