Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Population Surveys.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Cassandra L Boness, Rory A Pfund, Samuel Acuff, Martín Montaño-Pilch, Kenneth J Sher
{"title":"Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Population Surveys.","authors":"Cassandra L Boness, Rory A Pfund, Samuel Acuff, Martín Montaño-Pilch, Kenneth J Sher","doi":"10.15288/jsad.23-00368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.</p>","PeriodicalId":17159,"journal":{"name":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument).

Method: Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators.

Results: There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics.

Conclusions: The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.

大麻使用障碍的流行率:人口调查的 Meta 分析。
目的:流行病学调查旨在估算大麻使用和大麻使用障碍在人群中的流行率。流行率估计数对于了解政策变化的影响等趋势非常重要。现有的流行病学调查得出的估计值存在差异,可能并不可靠。当前的荟萃分析(PROSPERO CRD42022364818)旨在找出普通人群(12 岁以上)中大麻使用和使用障碍流行率估计值不可靠的潜在原因。虽然没有关于总体流行率估计值的具体假设,但我们预计估计值会因国家、数据收集年份和具体方法因素(如诊断工具)等因素而存在显著差异(即异质性):方法:通过系统检索确定了记录具有全国代表性的终生或上一年大麻使用障碍流行率估计值的手稿和报告。使用 Meta 分析法综合流行率估计值、评估异质性并测试调节因素:共有 39 篇手稿/报告被纳入分析,得出了 259 个独特的流行率估计值,时间跨度为 1980-2013 年,样本总量为 973,281 人。过去一年和终生大麻使用流行率估计值分别为 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) 和 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%),大麻使用障碍流行率估计值分别为 2.59% (95% CI: 2.30%, 2.90%) 和 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%)。估计值存在明显的异质性,部分原因在于国家、数据收集年份和方法特征等因素:作为方法学特征的函数,流行率估算值存在明显的异质性,这引起了人们对估算值普遍性的担忧。本文就如何提高这些估计值的有效性和可靠性提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs began in 1940 as the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. It was founded by Howard W. Haggard, M.D., director of Yale University’s Laboratory of Applied Physiology. Dr. Haggard was a physiologist studying the effects of alcohol on the body, and he started the Journal as a way to publish the increasing amount of research on alcohol use, abuse, and treatment that emerged from Yale and other institutions in the years following the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. In addition to original research, the Journal also published abstracts summarizing other published documents dealing with alcohol. At Yale, Dr. Haggard built a large team of alcohol researchers within the Laboratory of Applied Physiology—including E.M. Jellinek, who became managing editor of the Journal in 1941. In 1943, to bring together the various alcohol research projects conducted by the Laboratory, Dr. Haggard formed the Section of Studies on Alcohol, which also became home to the Journal and its editorial staff. In 1950, the Section was renamed the Center of Alcohol Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信