Item response theory analysis of benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer survivors.

Salene M W Jones, Mimi Ton, Rachel C Malen, Polly A Newcomb, Jaimee L Heffner
{"title":"Item response theory analysis of benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer survivors.","authors":"Salene M W Jones, Mimi Ton, Rachel C Malen, Polly A Newcomb, Jaimee L Heffner","doi":"10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medical cannabis with cancer as a qualifying condition has become legalized in more states, but currently there are no standardized measures of perceived benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer. This study surveyed a population-based sample of cancer survivors (n = 1539) with various types of cancer including breast (25%), prostate (17%), and gastrointestinal (11%) cancers. Item response theory analyses were used to evaluate the items for measuring perceived benefits and harms. Item response theory evaluates survey items by estimating the accuracy (analogous to reliability) and severity reflected by each item. Item response theory analyses showed all the items were accurate (reliable) measures of perceived benefits or harms. The perceived benefits items assessed beliefs well from low to high levels of perceived benefits. The perceived harms items assessed beliefs from moderate to high levels of perceived harms. The items can be used in future studies to standardize measurement while allowing some customization.</p>","PeriodicalId":73988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","volume":"2024 66","pages":"275-281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgad022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medical cannabis with cancer as a qualifying condition has become legalized in more states, but currently there are no standardized measures of perceived benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer. This study surveyed a population-based sample of cancer survivors (n = 1539) with various types of cancer including breast (25%), prostate (17%), and gastrointestinal (11%) cancers. Item response theory analyses were used to evaluate the items for measuring perceived benefits and harms. Item response theory evaluates survey items by estimating the accuracy (analogous to reliability) and severity reflected by each item. Item response theory analyses showed all the items were accurate (reliable) measures of perceived benefits or harms. The perceived benefits items assessed beliefs well from low to high levels of perceived benefits. The perceived harms items assessed beliefs from moderate to high levels of perceived harms. The items can be used in future studies to standardize measurement while allowing some customization.

对癌症幸存者吸食大麻的益处和害处进行项目反应理论分析。
在越来越多的州,以癌症为限定条件的医用大麻已经合法化,但目前还没有关于癌症患者对使用大麻的益处和危害的标准化衡量标准。本研究调查了以人口为基础的癌症幸存者样本(n = 1539),他们患有不同类型的癌症,包括乳腺癌(25%)、前列腺癌(17%)和胃肠道癌(11%)。采用项目反应理论分析法对项目进行评估,以衡量感知到的益处和危害。项目反应理论通过估计每个项目所反映的准确性(类似于可靠性)和严重性来评估调查项目。项目反应理论分析表明,所有项目都能准确(可靠)地测量所感知的益处或危害。益处感知项目对益处感知程度从低到高进行了评估。危害感知项目评估的是中度到高度的危害感知信念。这些项目可用于未来的研究中,以实现标准化测量,同时允许一定程度的定制。
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
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信