Who uses legal cannabis and why? Cluster profiles of participants in a Swiss regulated sales pilot trial

IF 3.5
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-19 DOI:10.1016/j.dadr.2026.100445
Maëlle Dreifuss Bisson , Tamara Corino , Tatiana Aboulafia Brakha , Federico Seragnoli , Laura Toso , Sandro Cattacin , Daniele Zullino , Lucas Spierer , Lucien Rochat
{"title":"Who uses legal cannabis and why? Cluster profiles of participants in a Swiss regulated sales pilot trial","authors":"Maëlle Dreifuss Bisson ,&nbsp;Tamara Corino ,&nbsp;Tatiana Aboulafia Brakha ,&nbsp;Federico Seragnoli ,&nbsp;Laura Toso ,&nbsp;Sandro Cattacin ,&nbsp;Daniele Zullino ,&nbsp;Lucas Spierer ,&nbsp;Lucien Rochat","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2026.100445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As cannabis regulation expands, it is important to understand who enrolls in legal non-medical cannabis programs and how participant profiles relate to harm. We identified participant profiles in Geneva’s pilot trial, <em>La Cannabinothèque</em>, using motives for cannabis use, knowledge of lower-risk use, and perceived risk, and examined differences in key outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Baseline data from 1290 people who use cannabis (PWUC) were analysed. Hierarchical clustering (Ward) followed by K-means refinement supported a four-cluster solution (Cramer’s V = 0.563). Clusters were compared on problematic cannabis use and consumption frequency, mental health symptoms, and quality of life.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Cluster 1 (<em>High motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Moderate risk perception</em>; 9.9%) showed high endorsement of all motives, lower-risk knowledge, and moderate to elevated perceived risk, and had the highest problematic use/frequency and poorer health indicators. Cluster 2 (<em>Moderate motives – Average safer-use knowledge – Low risk perception</em>; 26.7%) had moderate motives (relatively higher enhancement/social), average knowledge, lower perceived risk, and the lowest problematic use with better health indicators. Cluster 3 (<em>Low motives – High safer-use knowledge – High risk perception</em>; 29.4%) combined low-to-average motives with the highest knowledge and perceived risk, yet showed frequent use and problematic use comparable to Cluster 1. Cluster 4 (<em>Minimal motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Very low risk perception</em>; 34.0%) reported minimal motives, low knowledge and perceived risk, and low use/cannabis-related harms; members were older with later initiation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Findings support the link between coping-related motivation and problematic use, but the high-risk profile of Cluster 3 despite strong knowledge and risk awareness suggests that information and perception alone may not reduce harm. Profile-tailored harm reduction and integrated support may be needed within regulated cannabis frameworks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"19 ","pages":"Article 100445"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724626000387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

As cannabis regulation expands, it is important to understand who enrolls in legal non-medical cannabis programs and how participant profiles relate to harm. We identified participant profiles in Geneva’s pilot trial, La Cannabinothèque, using motives for cannabis use, knowledge of lower-risk use, and perceived risk, and examined differences in key outcomes.

Methods

Baseline data from 1290 people who use cannabis (PWUC) were analysed. Hierarchical clustering (Ward) followed by K-means refinement supported a four-cluster solution (Cramer’s V = 0.563). Clusters were compared on problematic cannabis use and consumption frequency, mental health symptoms, and quality of life.

Results

Cluster 1 (High motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Moderate risk perception; 9.9%) showed high endorsement of all motives, lower-risk knowledge, and moderate to elevated perceived risk, and had the highest problematic use/frequency and poorer health indicators. Cluster 2 (Moderate motives – Average safer-use knowledge – Low risk perception; 26.7%) had moderate motives (relatively higher enhancement/social), average knowledge, lower perceived risk, and the lowest problematic use with better health indicators. Cluster 3 (Low motives – High safer-use knowledge – High risk perception; 29.4%) combined low-to-average motives with the highest knowledge and perceived risk, yet showed frequent use and problematic use comparable to Cluster 1. Cluster 4 (Minimal motives – Low safer-use knowledge – Very low risk perception; 34.0%) reported minimal motives, low knowledge and perceived risk, and low use/cannabis-related harms; members were older with later initiation.

Conclusions

Findings support the link between coping-related motivation and problematic use, but the high-risk profile of Cluster 3 despite strong knowledge and risk awareness suggests that information and perception alone may not reduce harm. Profile-tailored harm reduction and integrated support may be needed within regulated cannabis frameworks.
谁在使用合法的大麻,为什么?瑞士监管销售试点试验参与者的集群概况。
背景:随着大麻监管的扩大,重要的是要了解谁参加了合法的非医疗大麻计划,以及参与者的档案如何与危害相关。我们确定了日内瓦试点试验La cannabinoth的参与者概况,使用大麻的动机、低风险使用的知识和感知风险,并检查了关键结果的差异。方法:分析1290名大麻使用者(PWUC)的基线数据。分层聚类(Ward)和K-means精化支持一个四聚类解决方案(Cramer的V = 0.563)。对有问题的大麻使用和消费频率、心理健康症状和生活质量进行了比较。结果:聚类1(高动机-低安全使用知识-中度风险认知;9.9%)对所有动机、低风险知识和中度至高感知风险的认可程度都很高,问题使用/频率最高,健康指标较差。第2组(中等动机-平均安全使用知识-低风险认知;26.7%)动机中等(相对较高的增强/社交),知识平均,感知风险较低,问题使用最低,健康指标较好。集群3(低动机-高安全使用知识-高风险认知;29.4%)将低至平均的动机与最高的知识和感知风险相结合,但与集群1相比,频繁使用和有问题的使用。集群4(最小动机-低安全使用知识-非常低风险认知;34.0%)报告最小动机,低知识和感知风险,低使用/大麻相关危害;成员年龄较大,入会时间较晚。结论:研究结果支持应对相关动机与问题使用之间的联系,但尽管有很强的知识和风险意识,但集群3的高风险特征表明,仅靠信息和感知可能无法减少伤害。在受管制的大麻框架内,可能需要针对具体情况的减少危害和综合支助。
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
Drug and alcohol dependence reports
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
100 days
×
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
小红书