Ava Mason1, Musa Sami2, Caitlin Notley3, Sagnik Bhattacharyya4. 1. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 2. Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, UK. 3. School of Medicine Health Policy & Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 4. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK. sagnik.2.bhattacharyya@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While current cannabis research has advanced our understanding into the effects of its individual components, there is a pressing need to identify simple terminology that is understood in the same way by researchers and users of cannabis. Current categorisation in research focuses on the two main cannabinoids: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD); and two different species of cannabis: indica and sativa. Recreational cannabis has also been categorised by researchers as 'skunk' or 'hash'. Focusing on individuals who use cannabis frequently, this study aimed to identify views on current terms used to denote different types of cannabis and to identify terms validated by participants. These views were extracted from responses of the Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), a widely used instrument in the literature. METHODS: We qualitatively analysed 236 free-text responses from Question 23 of the CEQ survey (using Iterative Categorisation) relating to categorization and consumption methods. Data was used from a previous study (Sami et al., Psychol Med 49:103-12, 2019), which recruited a convenience sample of 1231 participants aged 18 years and above who had previously used cannabis. RESULTS: Regarding type of cannabis used, specific strain names (n = 130), concentrates (n = 37), indica/sativa (n = 22) and THC/CBD terms (n = 22) were mentioned. Other terms used were hybrids (n = 10), origins of specific strains (n = 17), edibles (n = 8), and herbal cannabis (n = 7). Regarding problems with specific terms, participants were skeptical about terms such as skunk and super skunk (n = 78) preferring terms like THC/CBD, indica/sativa, specific marketed strains and references to preparation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a disparity between the common terms used by researchers in academia and those used by cannabis consumers. While there are advantages and limitations of using these terms to bridge views of researchers and individuals who use cannabis, this study underscores the importance of formally assessing chemical constituents rather than relying on self-report data and of incorporating cannabis user views on current terms used in research, potentially also incorporating descriptors of preparation and consumption methods.
BACKGROUND: While current cannabis research has advanced our understanding into the effects of its individual components, there is a pressing need to identify simple terminology that is understood in the same way by researchers and users of cannabis. Current categorisation in research focuses on the two main cannabinoids: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD); and two different species of cannabis: indica and sativa. Recreational cannabis has also been categorised by researchers as 'skunk' or 'hash'. Focusing on individuals who use cannabis frequently, this study aimed to identify views on current terms used to denote different types of cannabis and to identify terms validated by participants. These views were extracted from responses of the Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), a widely used instrument in the literature. METHODS: We qualitatively analysed 236 free-text responses from Question 23 of the CEQ survey (using Iterative Categorisation) relating to categorization and consumption methods. Data was used from a previous study (Sami et al., Psychol Med 49:103-12, 2019), which recruited a convenience sample of 1231 participants aged 18 years and above who had previously used cannabis. RESULTS: Regarding type of cannabis used, specific strain names (n = 130), concentrates (n = 37), indica/sativa (n = 22) and THC/CBD terms (n = 22) were mentioned. Other terms used were hybrids (n = 10), origins of specific strains (n = 17), edibles (n = 8), and herbal cannabis (n = 7). Regarding problems with specific terms, participants were skeptical about terms such as skunk and super skunk (n = 78) preferring terms like THC/CBD, indica/sativa, specific marketed strains and references to preparation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a disparity between the common terms used by researchers in academia and those used by cannabis consumers. While there are advantages and limitations of using these terms to bridge views of researchers and individuals who use cannabis, this study underscores the importance of formally assessing chemical constituents rather than relying on self-report data and of incorporating cannabis user views on current terms used in research, potentially also incorporating descriptors of preparation and consumption methods.
Authors: Marcel O Bonn-Miller; Matthew Tyler Boden; Meggan M Bucossi; Kimberly A Babson Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Marta Di Forti; Arianna Marconi; Elena Carra; Sara Fraietta; Antonella Trotta; Matteo Bonomo; Francesca Bianconi; Poonam Gardner-Sood; Jennifer O'Connor; Manuela Russo; Simona A Stilo; Tiago Reis Marques; Valeria Mondelli; Paola Dazzan; Carmine Pariante; Anthony S David; Fiona Gaughran; Zerrin Atakan; Conrad Iyegbe; John Powell; Craig Morgan; Michael Lynskey; Robin M Murray Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Safwat A Ahmed; Samir A Ross; Desmond Slade; Mohamed M Radwan; Ikhlas A Khan; Mahmoud A ElSohly Journal: Phytochemistry Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 4.072
Authors: Marta Di Forti; Craig Morgan; Paola Dazzan; Carmine Pariante; Valeria Mondelli; Tiago Reis Marques; Rowena Handley; Sonija Luzi; Manuela Russo; Alessandra Paparelli; Alexander Butt; Simona A Stilo; Ben Wiffen; John Powell; Robin M Murray Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Sagnik Bhattacharyya; Paul D Morrison; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Rocio Martin-Santos; Stefan Borgwardt; Toby Winton-Brown; Chiara Nosarti; Colin M O' Carroll; Marc Seal; Paul Allen; Mitul A Mehta; James M Stone; Nigel Tunstall; Vincent Giampietro; Shitij Kapur; Robin M Murray; Antonio W Zuardi; José A Crippa; Zerrin Atakan; Philip K McGuire Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: F Bianconi; M Bonomo; A Marconi; A Kolliakou; S A Stilo; C Iyegbe; P Gurillo Muñoz; S Homayoun; V Mondelli; S Luzi; P Dazzan; D Prata; C La Cascia; J O'Connor; A David; C Morgan; R M Murray; M Lynskey; M Di Forti Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 7.723