Shannon Lea Watkins1, Pearl Karliner-Li2, Youn Ok Lee3, Kimberly A Koester4, Pamela M Ling5. 1. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave. Ste 366, San Francisco, CA, 94143, United States. Electronic address: shannon-watkins@uiowa.edu. 2. University of California, San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: pearl.karliner-li@ucsf.edu. 3. Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, RTI International, United States. Electronic address: younlee@rti.org. 4. University of California, Department of Medicine, San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: Kimberly.Koester@ucsf.edu. 5. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave. Ste 366, San Francisco, CA, 94143, United States. Electronic address: pamela.ling@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in US states has been accompanied by increases in availability, acceptability, and diversity in methods of cannabis use, as well as an increase in devices and methods for cannabis-tobacco co-use. Updated and specific survey measures of cannabis and cannabis-tobacco co-use are needed. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods approach to identify sources of specification and measurement error in cannabis and cannabis-tobacco co-use measures. We surveyed and interviewed 36 young adult (age 18-29) cannabis and tobacco co-users in California (2017-2018), triangulated with document analysis of online cannabis websites and forums. We investigated how survey reports of cannabis use and cannabis-tobacco co-use compared to narrative descriptions provided during in-depth interviews. We identify key strategies for researchers collecting self-reported survey data to enhance accuracy and comprehensiveness of measures. FINDINGS: Potential sources of survey error included: broad variation in cannabinoid content and concentration, inconsistent interpretation of questions between participants and researchers (e.g. blunts were not considered co-use), and substantial variation in dosage within and between products. No evidence of survey recall bias or response editing was detected. CONCLUSION: To enhance survey accuracy, we recommend surveys specify which cannabis delivery methods and forms are included and excluded in each measure, differentiate between cannabis products, and explicitly include or exclude CBD product use.
BACKGROUND: Legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in US states has been accompanied by increases in availability, acceptability, and diversity in methods of cannabis use, as well as an increase in devices and methods for cannabis-tobacco co-use. Updated and specific survey measures of cannabis and cannabis-tobacco co-use are needed. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods approach to identify sources of specification and measurement error in cannabis and cannabis-tobacco co-use measures. We surveyed and interviewed 36 young adult (age 18-29) cannabis and tobacco co-users in California (2017-2018), triangulated with document analysis of online cannabis websites and forums. We investigated how survey reports of cannabis use and cannabis-tobacco co-use compared to narrative descriptions provided during in-depth interviews. We identify key strategies for researchers collecting self-reported survey data to enhance accuracy and comprehensiveness of measures. FINDINGS: Potential sources of survey error included: broad variation in cannabinoid content and concentration, inconsistent interpretation of questions between participants and researchers (e.g. blunts were not considered co-use), and substantial variation in dosage within and between products. No evidence of survey recall bias or response editing was detected. CONCLUSION: To enhance survey accuracy, we recommend surveys specify which cannabis delivery methods and forms are included and excluded in each measure, differentiate between cannabis products, and explicitly include or exclude CBD product use.
Authors: Christopher P Salas-Wright; Michael G Vaughn; Brian E Perron; Jennifer M Reingle Gonzalez; Trenette Clark Goings Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Francois R Lamy; Raminta Daniulaityte; Amit Sheth; Ramzi W Nahhas; Silvia S Martins; Edward W Boyer; Robert G Carlson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Renee M Cloutier; Brian H Calhoun; Stephanie T Lanza; Ashley N Linden-Carmichael Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.492