Addiction最新文献

{"title":"Evaluating the impact of vaping facts films on vaping harm perceptions among young adults in the UK: A randomized on-line experiment.","authors":"Mohammad Alharbi, Emma Ward, Caitlin Notley, Martin Dockrell, Eve Taylor, Katherine East","doi":"10.1111/add.70119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70119","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Measure the impact of brief, academic-led, evidence-based social media videos on vaping harm perceptions among young adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>On-line between-subjects experimental study. Participants were randomized to one of two conditions: experimental (exposed to one of eight brief videos, designed for social media, with academic experts addressing vaping harms) or control. Before and after exposure to the videos, all participants answered questions about their perceptions of vaping and smoking and socio-demographics.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Qualtrics on-line survey platform.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>593 young adults aged 18-30 years who resided in the UK (49.7% female, 49.2% male; 8.9% exclusively smoked, 32% exclusively vaped, 28.7% did both and 30.4% did neither). Participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 279) or control (n = 314) groups.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was the perception that vaping is less harmful than smoking. Secondary outcomes were perceptions that vaping is harmful, vaping is addictive and responses (true, false) to statements that were matched to the videos (e.g. vaping causes cancer, vaping causes lung injuries).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>After exposure to an expert video, compared with those in the control group, participants in the intervention group had over three times the odds of perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking [82.1% vs 57.6%; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.69; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 2.49-5.47; P < 0.001]. Perceptions that the following statements are false were also higher after viewing expert videos than control videos: vaping causes lung injury, vaping leads to cancer, nicotine is harmful when used in ways that does not involve smoking tobacco, pregnant women should not vape, vaping will not help you quit smoking, vaping has no place on the NHS (all P < 0.05). Participants exposed to the 'vaping is as harmful as smoking' misconception video had the highest odds of accurately perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking (AOR = 13.92; 95% CI = 3.26-59.37; P < 0.001). Videos specifically targeting individual misconceptions (e.g. 'vaping causes lung injury' or 'vaping causes cancer') were particularly effective in improving related perceptions, indicating that the videos functioned as designed. There was little evidence of associations between condition and perceiving that vaping is not harmful (AOR = 2.57; 95% CI = 0.78-8.52; P = 0.122) or not addictive (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.04-6.67; P = 0.594). Findings were similar among young adults regardless of vaping and smoking status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Brief, academic-led, vaping facts films appear to be effective in correcting vaping misperceptions and dispelling common misconceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144590090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Transporting the effect of the ASSIST school-based smoking prevention intervention to the Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use Among Young People in England Survey (2004-2021): A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"James White","doi":"10.1111/add.70141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70141","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To conduct exploratory analyses into the transported effect of the ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial) school-based smoking prevention intervention on weekly smoking in young people between 2004 and 2021.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary analysis of a cluster randomized control trial (cRCT).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>England and Wales.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>ASSIST trial participants comprised 8756 students aged 12-13 years in 59 schools assigned using stratified block randomization to the control (29 schools, 4193 students) or intervention (30 schools, 4563 students) condition. The target population was represented by 12-13-year-old participants in the Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use Among Young People in England Survey (SDDU) in 2004 (n = 3958), 2006 (n = 3377), 2014 (n = 3145), 2016 (n = 4874) and 2021 (n = 3587), which are randomly sampled school-based surveys with student response rates varying between 85% and 93%.</p><p><strong>Intervention and comparator: </strong>The ASSIST intervention involved 2 days of off-site training of influential students to encourage their peers not to smoke over a 10-week period. The control group continued with their usual education.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The outcome was the proportion of students who self-reported weekly smoking 2 years post-intervention.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The prevalence of weekly smoking at the 2-year follow-up in the ASSIST trial in 2004 was 4.1%, 49.5% of students were girls, and 7.8% ethnic minorities. In the SDDU in 2004, the prevalence of weekly smoking was 3.6%, 47.6% students were girls and 14.4% ethnic minorities and in 2021 0.2% were weekly smokers, 48.6% girls and 27.8% ethnic minorities. The odds ratio of weekly smoking in the ASSIST trial in 2004 was 0.85 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.71-1.02]. The estimated odds ratio in the SDDU target population in 2004 was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.72-1.13), in 2014 was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.70-1.14), and by 2021 was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.60-1.28). The confidence interval ratio was used to estimate precision in the transported estimates in the target population and was 1.57 in 2004, 1.63 in 2014 and 2.13 in 2021, reflecting increasing uncertainty in the effect of ASSIST over time. Subgroup analyses showed effects were comparable when restricted to only English schools in the ASSIST trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These exploratory analyses indicate the effect of the ASSIST school-based smoking prevention intervention reported in the original trial may not have been replicated in the target population over the 17-year period of its licensing and roll out.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144582705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unreliable evidence from problematic risk of bias assessments: Comment on Begh et al., 'Electronic cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking in young people: A systematic review'.","authors":"Sam Egger, Martin McKee","doi":"10.1111/add.70143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70143","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144566855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Alcohol-specific inhibition training in patients with alcohol use disorder: A multi-centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial examining drinking outcome and working mechanisms”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/add.70124","DOIUrl":"10.1111/add.70124","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;\u0000 &lt;span&gt;Stein, M&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Soravia, LM&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Tschuemperlin, RM&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Batschelet, HM&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Jaeger, J&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Roesner, S&lt;/span&gt;, et al. &lt;span&gt;Alcohol-specific inhibition training in patients with alcohol use disorder: A multi-centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial examining drinking outcome and working mechanisms&lt;/span&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Addiction&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;span&gt;2023&lt;/span&gt;; &lt;span&gt;118&lt;/span&gt;(&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;): &lt;span&gt;646&lt;/span&gt;–&lt;span&gt;657&lt;/span&gt;. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16104&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the context of secondary analyses [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] of this study's data, information relevant to the statistics presented in the original publication [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;] came to our attention.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;First, the multiple imputations used in the original publication in the regression analysis were distorted and do not replicate with newer versions of &lt;i&gt;R&lt;/i&gt; and of the &lt;i&gt;mice&lt;/i&gt; package [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;]. Recomputing the regression analyses using imputations generated with the newer versions did not replicate the effects reported in the original publication; while similar on a descriptive level [with estimates for improved alcohol-specific inhibition training (Alc-IT) being superior to standard Alc-IT and control], no indicators for a significant effect of improved (β = 8.06, SE = 5.49, &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt; = 0.145, 95% CI = −2.84 to 19.00) or standard Alc-IT (β = −2.22, SE = 5.66, &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt; = 0.695, CI = −13.5 to 9.05) were yielded. We, therefore, must correct our statement that a significant effect of improved Alc-IT can be observed with a linear regression based on multiple imputations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Importantly, the hierarchical linear model (HLM) results, which are not based on the multiple imputations and are, therefore, not affected by these corrections, still yield a significant effect of improved Alc-IT, as described in the original publication.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In such a case, maximum likelihood methods, like the HLM analyses, which are presented in section 2.3 of the Supporting information, are more appropriate [&lt;span&gt;7, 8, 10-12&lt;/span&gt;]. We regret not addressing these issues more thoroughly before the original publication, as this would have led us to stick more tenaciously to the HLMs. These HLMs—originally presented as the main analyses by us—were moved from the main text to the Supporting information on intervention during the review process with the aim to enhance comparability with earlier studies. However, given the reasons above, it seems more important to analyze the data with the most appropriate approach, which is represented by the HLMs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Second, in the sensitivity analyses, an error in the condition labels occurred, leading to control and improved Alc-IT being compared against standard Alc-IT as a baseline. Correct labels in eTable 2 would, therefore, have been as follows:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;eTable 2(a): Analyses of PDA at 3-month follow-up under a MCAR and MNAR assumption (comparing control and improved Alc-IT against standard Alc-IT)\u0000\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"120 9","pages":"1905-1907"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.70124","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144551472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"United States trends in non-prescribed use of Adderall and Ritalin: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study estimates from 2013 to 2022.","authors":"Joshua P Rising, Michael J Parks, Beth Han, Rose Radin, Celeste Mallama, Heather L Kimmel, MeLisa R Creamer, Wilson M Compton","doi":"10.1111/add.70123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70123","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background and aims: &lt;/strong&gt;Dispensing of prescription stimulants to adults has risen dramatically over the past decade. Examining trends in nonprescribed use of prescription stimulants can inform public health responses. Most studies in the United States (U.S.) have faced challenges in assessing trends over time due to changes in survey methodologies and variation in populations assessed. We examined data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study to assess changes in nonprescribed use of prescription stimulants in the U.S. from 2013 to 2022.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;The PATH Study is an ongoing longitudinal study of U.S. youth and adults, representative of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Repeated cross-sectional estimates at each wave were used (8 total waves). Trends from Wave (W) 1 (September 2013-December 2014) to W7 (January 2022-April 2023) were assessed. Full-sample and replicate weights were used; joinpoint analyses and wave-to-wave comparisons were applied to test trends.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting: &lt;/strong&gt;Civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. youth and adults.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Participants/cases: &lt;/strong&gt;Youth aged 12-17 and adults aged 18 + were assessed, with a total of 45 727 participants at wave 1 (Ns vary by wave).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Measurements: &lt;/strong&gt;Past 12-month (P12M) prevalence of nonprescribed use of Ritalin or Adderall was assessed. Nonprescribed use of stimulants was assessed across subgroups according to age (12-17, 18-24, 25-39, ≥40) and sex (male, female).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Findings: &lt;/strong&gt;While wave-to-wave comparisons showed fluctuations across certain waves, overall, there were no statistically significant changes in P12M prevalence of Ritalin or Adderall nonprescribed use (1.3% at W1 and 1.5% at W7) across the study period. However, statistically significant differences in trends existed across age groups. Among 12-17 year-olds, nonprescribed use prevalence remained stable (1.4% in W1 and 1.5% in W7). Nonprescribed use prevalence also remained stable for 18-24-year-olds from W1 to W3, but then significantly declined (p = 0.016) from W3 (5.3%) to W7 (2.6%). There were no significant changes in nonprescribed use prevalence among 25-39-year-olds (1.7% in W1 and 2.4% in W7) and those aged ≥40 (0.3% in W1 and 0.9% in W7). Across most waves, young adults aged 18-24 had a statistically significantly higher prevalence of nonprescribed use. Neither sex had significant trends in P12M nonprescribed use prevalence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Despite an increase in dispensing of prescription stimulant medications in the United States, the prevalence of nonprescribed Ritalin or Adderall use does not appear to have increased, as assessed in the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. The prevalence of nonprescribed Ritalin or Adderall use among young adults aged 18-24, the age group with the highest nonprescribed use prevalence, dec","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An age-period-cohort-interaction analysis of meth/amphetamine-related deaths in Australia, 2001-2020.","authors":"Oisin Stronach, Paul Dietze, Michael Livingston, Amanda Roxburgh","doi":"10.1111/add.70100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70100","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The number of meth/amphetamine related deaths in Australia has quadrupled in the last 20 years, primarily due to drug toxicity and suicide among individuals in their 30s and 40s. Previous analysis of Australian meth/amphetamine-related deaths covered limited timeframes and causes, and there has been no exploration of the effects of changing cohorts on meth/amphetamine mortality. This paper provides comprehensive insights across 20 years into the evolving cohort trends in meth/amphetamine-related deaths in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An age-period-cohort-interaction (APC-I) analysis of Australian meth/amphetamine-related deaths (2001-2020) by cause extracted from the National Coronial Information System, a database of all deaths reported to the coroner in Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>APC-I analyses revealed that unintentional drug toxicity deaths peaked at ages 35-38 [Coefficient (Coef) = 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-0.8], intentional self-harm deaths peaked at ages 31-34 (Coef = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.4-1.0), unintentional injury deaths peaked at ages 23-26 (Coef = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.2-0.8) and natural cause deaths at 39-42 (Coef = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.4-0.9). Period effects were consistent across all causes, with a mean 29.3% increase in estimated mortality rate from 2001 to 2012, followed by a mean 103.3% increase in estimated mortality rate to 2016, at which time period effects stabilised. Cohort effects revealed that individuals born between 1962 and 1982 (mainly Generation X) faced a higher-than-average mortality risk across all four causes, with risk decreasing in later generations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite different age profiles across the various causes of death, cohort effects suggest a single generation (Generation X: people born between 1962 and 1982) is predominantly experiencing the increase in meth/amphetamine-related mortality observed in Australia over the past 20 years. As Generation X ages, the risk of meth/amphetamine-related natural deaths, especially from cardiovascular disease, is likely to increase.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Examining the role of freebase nicotine in the harm reduction potential of oral nicotine pouches versus moist snuff: A randomized crossover trial.","authors":"Brittney Keller-Hamilton, Hayley Curran, Leanne Atkinson, Sriya Suraapaneni, Alice Hinton, Kirsten Chrzan, Darren Mays, Ahmad El-Hellani, Clark W Wilson, Marielle C Brinkman, Theodore L Wagener","doi":"10.1111/add.70114","DOIUrl":"10.1111/add.70114","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) contain varying proportions of freebase nicotine (FBN), with higher FBN expected to increase nicotine delivery across the oral mucosa. Because ONPs contain fewer toxicants than moist snuff and may serve as a reduced harm alternative for smokeless tobacco, we compared how the FBN in ONPs affects both nicotine pharmacokinetics and craving relief relative to moist snuff.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Three-visit (90-minute sessions; ≥48-hour washout), single-blind, randomized crossover study. Participants were asked to complete all visits within 1 month.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Clinical facility in Columbus, Ohio, USA.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>N = 62 moist snuff users (M_age = 41 years, 96.8% male, 91.9% white, 33.9% had tried ONPs before), recruited through social media advertisements and participants' word-of-mouth from rural and Appalachian Ohio.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Following ≥12 hours of nicotine abstinence, participants used either a (1) low FBN peppermint ONP (27.4% FBN; 5.1 mg nicotine/pouch; Rogue brand), (2) high FBN peppermint ONP (70.2% FBN; 5.0 mg nicotine/pouch; Zyn brand) or (3) 2 g of usual brand moist snuff for 30 minutes. Participants completed the three study visits in one of six randomized orders.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Plasma nicotine and self-reported craving were assessed at t = baseline, 5, 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes. Plasma nicotine and craving relief at t = 30 minutes were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>At t = 30 minutes, mean [standard deviation (SD)] plasma nicotine concentrations were 7.1 (2.8) ng/mL for low FBN ONP, 14.8 (6.4) ng/mL for high FBN ONP and 12.3 (8.4) ng/mL for moist snuff (all comparison Ps ≤ 0.001). Craving was lower for moist snuff (mean = 0.8) than either ONP (means = 1.4), with the low FBN ONP providing statistically significantly less craving relief than moist snuff (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proportion of freebase nicotine in oral nicotine pouches appears to statistically significantly influence their nicotine delivery, with higher freebase nicotine oral nicotine pouches delivering more nicotine than usual brand moist snuff. However, craving appears to be higher when using oral nicotine pouches than usual brand moist snuff.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12291100/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding medical cannabis use internationally: Why definitions and context matter.","authors":"Myfanwy Graham, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Seema Choksy Pessar, Yimin Ge, Alexandra F Kritikos, Wayne Hall, David Hammond","doi":"10.1111/add.70117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70117","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To identify variation in identification of medical consumers using alternative self-reported measures and assess whether differences in these rates exist across jurisdictions with different medical policy approaches using evidence from an international study on cannabis use.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary analysis of wave 4 (2021) of the International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS) cross-sectional survey.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United States, Canada and Australia.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>16 951 (USA 10 472; CAN 5935; AUS 544) respondents who completed the survey and reported past year cannabis use across the three jurisdictions.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Four different medical cannabis use measures were available, and rates of each were estimated using logistic regression methods that adjusted for age, gender, education and ethnicity. Medical cannabis use measures included potentially authorized use (i.e. involving a licensed health professional recommendation, authorization or prescription), pharmaceutical use (i.e. involving a pharmaceutical-grade product), therapeutic use (i.e. to manage physical or mental health conditions) and self-identified medical cannabis use. Country-specific differences were compared and discussed in light of measure and differing cannabis policies.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In wave 4 of the ICPS, 34.0% reported any past year cannabis use, but rates of medical use differed significantly according to the specific question. Far more individuals reported therapeutic use in the past year across all countries [77.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 76.4%-78.2%] than any other measure of medical use. While just over one quarter (28.2%; 95% CI = 27.3%-29.2%) self-identified as a medical user, fewer reported being potentially authorized (22.8%; 95% CI = 22.0%-23.7%) or having a pharmaceutical prescription from a medical professional (12.3%; 95% CI = 11.6%-13.0%). Australians (27.2%; 95% CI = 23.0%-31.4%) and Americans (25.9%; 95% CI = 24.6%-27.2%) were more likely to report potentially authorized use than Canadians (17.3%; 95% CI = 16.1%-18.4%), but only Australians (27.4%; 95% CI = 23.6%-31.2%) reported high levels of prior use of a pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the International Cannabis Policy Study, the proportion of respondents (adjusted for demographic factors) who reported medical use varied depending on the measures used within and between countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Offering e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction in people with mental illness (ESCAPE): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Dimitra Kale, Emma Beard, Yan Ding, Jodi Pervin, Qi Wu, Catherine Arundel, Steve Parrott, Paul Galdas, Michelle Horspool, Simon Hough, Gregor Russell, Suzy Ker, Elena Ratschen, Lion Shahab","doi":"10.1111/add.70115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70115","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Despite a steady decline in smoking rates across the United Kingdom (UK) over the past decades, substantial tobacco-related inequalities persist, particularly among individuals with mental illness. Smoking prevalence in this group has remained largely unchanged, highlighting a major public health concern. This protocol outlines a trial aimed at addressing this issue by evaluating the effectiveness of offering an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) starter kit for smoking cessation and harm reduction as an adjunct to usual care to adults who smoke with mental illness treated in the community.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two-arm parallel randomized controlled superiority trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A minimum of eleven UK National Health Service mental health Trusts or general practices.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults who smoke with a diagnosis of mental illness treated in the community.</p><p><strong>Intervention and comparator: </strong>Participants will be randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive: (i) an e-cigarette starter kit, a brief demonstration and both verbal and written information on e-cigarette use as an adjunct to usual care; or (ii) usual care alone.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome is 7-day point prevalence carbon monoxide-validated abstinence, assessed six months after study enrolment or target quit date. Secondary outcomes include: 6-month continuous abstinence defined by Russell Standard, self-reported smoking abstinence at 1 month, ≥50% smoking reduction (cigarettes/day) at 1 and 6 months, mental health symptoms and general mood and physical symptoms at 1 and 6 months, cost-effectiveness of the intervention and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Comments: </strong>This will be the first large-scale study in the UK to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing an e-cigarette starter kit for smoking cessation and harm reduction in people with mental illness. Results will inform policy and practice related to supporting smoking cessation for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rare but relevant: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction.","authors":"Prianka Padmanathan, Emmert Roberts","doi":"10.1111/add.70128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70128","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pre-clinical research and case reports have linked cannabis use to myocardial infarction (MI) since the 1970s. The association with MI may be specific to certain types and patterns of cannabis use as well as certain consumer characteristics; however, due to limited data availability, meta-analyses examining the association between cannabis use and MI typically report only broad binary categorisations of use vs. no use. Robust prospective studies that capture the complexities of consumption patterns are required to inform causal inferences. In the meantime, clinicians should be aware of the potential increased risk of myocardial infarction in young healthy patients presenting with chest pain and a recent history of cannabis use. Accurate assessment and documentation of recent cannabis use is also essential to improve future research and identify and monitor interactions with cardiovascular medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144537514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}