Natalie S Levy1, Pia M Mauro2, Christine M Mauro3, Luis E Segura2, Silvia S Martins2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: nsl2110@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, United States. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests that perceived risk and perceived availability of cannabis independently affect cannabis use. However, perceived risk likely modifies the effect of perceived availability, and vice versa. This study explored trends in joint perceived risk and availability of cannabis from 2002 to 2018 and the relationship between combined perceptions and cannabis use, frequent use, and cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS: National Surveys on Drug Use and Health data (n = 949,285, ages 12+) were used to create combined categories of perceived risk of weekly cannabis use and perceived cannabis availability. Descriptive analyses compared joint perceived risk/availability trends (pre/post-2015 due to survey redesign) overall and stratified by age, gender, past-year cannabis use, frequent use, and CUD. Regression analysis estimated associations between perceived risk/availability and cannabis outcomes. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2018, the prevalence of perceiving cannabis as low-risk doubled while perceiving cannabis as available remained unchanged. The proportion of individuals perceiving cannabis as Low-risk/Available increased by 86% from 2002 to 2014 (16.8%-31.2%) and 19% from 2015 to 2018 (30.1%-35.8%) while High-risk/Available and High-risk/Unavailable proportions declined. Differing patterns were observed by age and gender. Compared with individuals perceiving cannabis as High-risk/Unavailable, people in all other perception categories had greater risk of all cannabis outcomes. Results were consistent with additive interaction between perceived risk and availability in their effects on cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Trends and associations with cannabis outcomes differ when considering perceived risk and availability independently versus jointly. Longitudinal studies and cannabis policy evaluations would advance understanding of links between cannabis perceptions and use.
BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests that perceived risk and perceived availability of cannabis independently affect cannabis use. However, perceived risk likely modifies the effect of perceived availability, and vice versa. This study explored trends in joint perceived risk and availability of cannabis from 2002 to 2018 and the relationship between combined perceptions and cannabis use, frequent use, and cannabis use disorder (CUD). METHODS: National Surveys on Drug Use and Health data (n = 949,285, ages 12+) were used to create combined categories of perceived risk of weekly cannabis use and perceived cannabis availability. Descriptive analyses compared joint perceived risk/availability trends (pre/post-2015 due to survey redesign) overall and stratified by age, gender, past-year cannabis use, frequent use, and CUD. Regression analysis estimated associations between perceived risk/availability and cannabis outcomes. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2018, the prevalence of perceiving cannabis as low-risk doubled while perceiving cannabis as available remained unchanged. The proportion of individuals perceiving cannabis as Low-risk/Available increased by 86% from 2002 to 2014 (16.8%-31.2%) and 19% from 2015 to 2018 (30.1%-35.8%) while High-risk/Available and High-risk/Unavailable proportions declined. Differing patterns were observed by age and gender. Compared with individuals perceiving cannabis as High-risk/Unavailable, people in all other perception categories had greater risk of all cannabis outcomes. Results were consistent with additive interaction between perceived risk and availability in their effects on cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Trends and associations with cannabis outcomes differ when considering perceived risk and availability independently versus jointly. Longitudinal studies and cannabis policy evaluations would advance understanding of links between cannabis perceptions and use.
Authors: Sarah B Klieger; Abraham Gutman; Leslie Allen; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Jennifer K Ibrahim; Scott Burris Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Wilson M Compton; Beth Han; Christopher M Jones; Carlos Blanco; Arthur Hughes Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Benjamin H Han; Scott Sherman; Pia M Mauro; Silvia S Martins; James Rotenberg; Joseph J Palamar Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Aaron L Sarvet; Melanie M Wall; Katherine M Keyes; Magdalena Cerdá; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston; Deborah S Hasin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Silvia S Martins; Christine M Mauro; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; June H Kim; Magdalena Cerda; Katherine M Keyes; Deborah S Hasin; Sandro Galea; Melanie Wall Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ashley Brooks-Russell; Ming Ma; Arnold H Levinson; Leo Kattari; Tom Kirchner; Erin M Anderson Goodell; Renee M Johnson Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2019-02
Authors: Deborah S Hasin; Andrew J Saxon; Carol Malte; Mark Olfson; Katherine M Keyes; Jaimie L Gradus; Magdalena Cerdá; Charles C Maynard; Salomeh Keyhani; Silvia S Martins; David S Fink; Ofir Livne; Zachary Mannes; Melanie M Wall Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 19.242
Authors: Priscila D Gonçalves; Sarah Gutkind; Luis E Segura; João M Castaldelli-Maia; Silvia S Martins; Pia M Mauro Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Valerio Ricci; Giovanni Martinotti; Franca Ceci; Stefania Chiappini; Francesco Di Carlo; Julius Burkauskas; Ottavia Susini; Debora Luciani; Diego Quattrone; Domenico De Berardis; Mauro Pettorruso; Giuseppe Maina; Massimo Di Giannantonio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.390