Deborah S Hasin, Zachary L Mannes, Ofir Livne, David S Fink, Silvia S Martins, Malki Stohl, Mark Olfson, Magdalena Cerdá, Katherine M Keyes, Salomeh Keyhani, Caroline G Wisell, Julia M Bujno, Andrew Saxon
{"title":"Cannabis Use and Cannabis Use Disorder Among U.S. Adults with Psychiatric Disorders: 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.","authors":"Deborah S Hasin, Zachary L Mannes, Ofir Livne, David S Fink, Silvia S Martins, Malki Stohl, Mark Olfson, Magdalena Cerdá, Katherine M Keyes, Salomeh Keyhani, Caroline G Wisell, Julia M Bujno, Andrew Saxon","doi":"10.1080/10826084.2024.2423374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rates of cannabis use disorder (CUD) have increased disproportionately among Veterans Administration (VA) patients with psychiatric disorders compared to patients with no disorder. However, VA patient samples are not representative of all U.S. adults, so results on disproportionate increases in CUD prevalence could have been biased. To address this concern, we investigated whether disproportionate increases in the prevalence of cannabis outcomes among those with psychiatric disorders would replicate in nationally representative samples of U.S. adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data came from two national surveys conducted in 2001-2002 (<i>n</i> = 43,093) and 2012-2013 (<i>n</i> = 36,309). Outcomes were any past-year non-medical cannabis use, frequent non-medical use (≥3 times weekly), and DSM-IV CUD. Psychiatric disorders included mood, anxiety and antisocial personality disorders. Logistic regression was used to generate predicted prevalences of the outcomes, prevalence differences calculated and additive interactions compared differences between those with and without psychiatric disorders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cannabis outcomes increased more among those with psychiatric disorders. The difference in prevalence differences included any past-year non-medical cannabis use, 2.45% (95%CI = 1.29-3.62); frequent non-medical cannabis use, 1.58% (95%CI = 0.83-2.33); CUD, 1.40% (95%CI = 0.58-2.21). For most specific disorders, prevalences increased more among those with the disorder.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the U.S. general population, rates of cannabis use and CUD increased more among adults with psychiatric disorders than other adults, similar to findings from VA patient samples. Results suggest that although VA patients are not representative of all U.S. adults, findings from this important patient group can be informative. Greater clinical and policy attention to CUD is warranted for adults with psychiatric disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":22088,"journal":{"name":"Substance Use & Misuse","volume":" ","pages":"285-292"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11710973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Use & Misuse","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2024.2423374","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Rates of cannabis use disorder (CUD) have increased disproportionately among Veterans Administration (VA) patients with psychiatric disorders compared to patients with no disorder. However, VA patient samples are not representative of all U.S. adults, so results on disproportionate increases in CUD prevalence could have been biased. To address this concern, we investigated whether disproportionate increases in the prevalence of cannabis outcomes among those with psychiatric disorders would replicate in nationally representative samples of U.S. adults.
Methods: Data came from two national surveys conducted in 2001-2002 (n = 43,093) and 2012-2013 (n = 36,309). Outcomes were any past-year non-medical cannabis use, frequent non-medical use (≥3 times weekly), and DSM-IV CUD. Psychiatric disorders included mood, anxiety and antisocial personality disorders. Logistic regression was used to generate predicted prevalences of the outcomes, prevalence differences calculated and additive interactions compared differences between those with and without psychiatric disorders.
Results: Cannabis outcomes increased more among those with psychiatric disorders. The difference in prevalence differences included any past-year non-medical cannabis use, 2.45% (95%CI = 1.29-3.62); frequent non-medical cannabis use, 1.58% (95%CI = 0.83-2.33); CUD, 1.40% (95%CI = 0.58-2.21). For most specific disorders, prevalences increased more among those with the disorder.
Conclusions: In the U.S. general population, rates of cannabis use and CUD increased more among adults with psychiatric disorders than other adults, similar to findings from VA patient samples. Results suggest that although VA patients are not representative of all U.S. adults, findings from this important patient group can be informative. Greater clinical and policy attention to CUD is warranted for adults with psychiatric disorders.
期刊介绍:
For over 50 years, Substance Use & Misuse (formerly The International Journal of the Addictions) has provided a unique international multidisciplinary venue for the exchange of original research, theories, policy analyses, and unresolved issues concerning substance use and misuse (licit and illicit drugs, alcohol, nicotine, and eating disorders). Guest editors for special issues devoted to single topics of current concern are invited.
Topics covered include:
Clinical trials and clinical research (treatment and prevention of substance misuse and related infectious diseases)
Epidemiology of substance misuse and related infectious diseases
Social pharmacology
Meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Translation of scientific findings to real world clinical and other settings
Adolescent and student-focused research
State of the art quantitative and qualitative research
Policy analyses
Negative results and intervention failures that are instructive
Validity studies of instruments, scales, and tests that are generalizable
Critiques and essays on unresolved issues
Authors can choose to publish gold open access in this journal.