Exploring survey methods for measuring consumption quantities of cannabis flower and concentrate products.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Jacob T Borodovsky, Cara A Struble, Mohammad I Habib, Deborah S Hasin, Dvora Shmulewitz, Claire Walsh, Ofir Livne, Efrat Aharonovich, Alan J Budney
{"title":"Exploring survey methods for measuring consumption quantities of cannabis flower and concentrate products.","authors":"Jacob T Borodovsky, Cara A Struble, Mohammad I Habib, Deborah S Hasin, Dvora Shmulewitz, Claire Walsh, Ofir Livne, Efrat Aharonovich, Alan J Budney","doi":"10.1080/00952990.2023.2246635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background:</i> Researchers need accurate measurements of cannabis consumption quantities to assess risks and benefits. Survey methods for measuring cannabis flower and concentrate quantities remain underdeveloped.<i>Objective:</i> We examined \"grams\" and \"hits\" units for measuring flower and concentrate quantities, and calculating milligrams of THC (mgTHC).<i>Methods:</i> Online survey participants (<i>n</i> = 2,381) reported preferred unit (hits <i>or</i> grams), past-week hits <i>and</i> grams for each product, and product %THC. Quantile regression compared mgTHC between unit-preference subgroups. Hits-based mgTHC calculations assumed a universal grams-per-hit ratio (GPHR). To examine individualized GPHRs, we tested a \"two-item approach,\" which divided total grams by total hits, and \"one-item approach,\" which divided 0.5 grams by responses to the question: <i>\"How many total hits would it take you to finish 1/2 g of your</i> [product] <i>by</i> [administration method]?\"<i>Results:</i> Participants were primarily daily consumers (77%), 50% female sex, mean age 39.0 (SD 16.4), 85% White, 49% employed full-time. Compared to those who preferred the hits unit, those who preferred the grams unit reported consuming more hits <i>and</i> grams, higher %THC products, and consequently, larger median mgTHC (flower-hits mgTHC: 32 vs. 91 (95%CI: 52-67); flower-grams mgTHC: 27 vs. 113 (95%CI: 73-95); concentrate-hits mgTHC: 29 vs. 59 (95%CI: 15-43); concentrate-grams mgTHC: 61 vs. 129 (95%CI: 43-94)). \"Two-item\" and \"one-item\" approach GPHRs were similar and frequently 50% larger or smaller than the universal GPHR.<i>Conclusion:</i> Allowing respondents to choose \"hits\" or \"grams\" when reporting cannabis quantities does not compromise mgTHC estimates. A low-burden, one-item approach yields individualized \"hit sizes\" that may improve mgTHC estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":48957,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"733-745"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10795727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2023.2246635","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Researchers need accurate measurements of cannabis consumption quantities to assess risks and benefits. Survey methods for measuring cannabis flower and concentrate quantities remain underdeveloped.Objective: We examined "grams" and "hits" units for measuring flower and concentrate quantities, and calculating milligrams of THC (mgTHC).Methods: Online survey participants (n = 2,381) reported preferred unit (hits or grams), past-week hits and grams for each product, and product %THC. Quantile regression compared mgTHC between unit-preference subgroups. Hits-based mgTHC calculations assumed a universal grams-per-hit ratio (GPHR). To examine individualized GPHRs, we tested a "two-item approach," which divided total grams by total hits, and "one-item approach," which divided 0.5 grams by responses to the question: "How many total hits would it take you to finish 1/2 g of your [product] by [administration method]?"Results: Participants were primarily daily consumers (77%), 50% female sex, mean age 39.0 (SD 16.4), 85% White, 49% employed full-time. Compared to those who preferred the hits unit, those who preferred the grams unit reported consuming more hits and grams, higher %THC products, and consequently, larger median mgTHC (flower-hits mgTHC: 32 vs. 91 (95%CI: 52-67); flower-grams mgTHC: 27 vs. 113 (95%CI: 73-95); concentrate-hits mgTHC: 29 vs. 59 (95%CI: 15-43); concentrate-grams mgTHC: 61 vs. 129 (95%CI: 43-94)). "Two-item" and "one-item" approach GPHRs were similar and frequently 50% larger or smaller than the universal GPHR.Conclusion: Allowing respondents to choose "hits" or "grams" when reporting cannabis quantities does not compromise mgTHC estimates. A low-burden, one-item approach yields individualized "hit sizes" that may improve mgTHC estimates.

探索测量大麻花和浓缩产品消费量的调查方法。
背景:研究人员需要准确测量大麻消费量,以评估风险和收益。测量大麻花和浓缩物数量的调查方法仍然不完善。目的:我们检查了“克”和“命中”单位,用于测量花和浓缩物的数量,并计算四氢大麻酚的毫克数。方法:在线调查参与者(n = 2381)报告了优选单位(点击量或克)、每种产品过去一周的点击量和克数,以及产品%THC。分位数回归比较了单位偏好亚组之间的mgTHC。基于命中率的mgTHC计算假设了通用的命中率(GPHR)。为了检查个性化的GPHR,我们测试了“两项方法”和“一项方法”,前者将总点击量除以总点击量,后者将0.5克除以对以下问题的回答:“你需要多少总点击量才能完成1/2 g你的[产品]通过[给药方法]?“结果:参与者主要是日常消费者(77%),50%为女性,平均年龄39.0(标准差16.4),85%为白人,49%为全职雇员。与那些喜欢点击量单位的人相比,那些喜欢克数单位的人报告说,他们消费了更多的点击量和克数,THC产品的百分比更高,因此,mgTHC的中位数更大(花点击量mgTHC:32对91(95%置信区间:52-67);花点击量mg THC:27对113(95%置信区间:73-95);浓缩物达到mgTHC:29对59(95%置信区间:15-43);浓缩物克数mgTHC:61对129(95%置信区间:43-94))。“两项”和“一项”方法的GPHR相似,通常比通用GPHR大或小50%。结论:允许受访者在报告大麻数量时选择“点击量”或“克数”不会影响mgTHC的估计值。一种低负担、单一项目的方法可以产生个性化的“点击量”,这可能会提高mgTHC的估计值。
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
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (AJDAA) is an international journal published six times per year and provides an important and stimulating venue for the exchange of ideas between the researchers working in diverse areas, including public policy, epidemiology, neurobiology, and the treatment of addictive disorders. AJDAA includes a wide range of translational research, covering preclinical and clinical aspects of the field. AJDAA covers these topics with focused data presentations and authoritative reviews of timely developments in our field. Manuscripts exploring addictions other than substance use disorders are encouraged. Reviews and Perspectives of emerging fields are given priority consideration. Areas of particular interest include: public health policy; novel research methodologies; human and animal pharmacology; human translational studies, including neuroimaging; pharmacological and behavioral treatments; new modalities of care; molecular and family genetic studies; medicinal use of substances traditionally considered substances of abuse.
×
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