Cassandra L Boness, Rory A Pfund, Samuel Acuff, Martín Montaño-Pilch, Kenneth J Sher
{"title":"大麻使用障碍的流行率:人口调查的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Cassandra L Boness, Rory A Pfund, Samuel Acuff, Martín Montaño-Pilch, Kenneth J Sher","doi":"10.15288/jsad.23-00368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.</p>","PeriodicalId":17159,"journal":{"name":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Population Surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Cassandra L Boness, Rory A Pfund, Samuel Acuff, Martín Montaño-Pilch, Kenneth J Sher\",\"doi\":\"10.15288/jsad.23-00368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00368\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Population Surveys.
Objective: Epidemiologic surveys aim to estimate the population prevalence of cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Prevalences estimates are important for understanding trends, such as the impact of policy change. Existing epidemiologic surveys have produced discrepant and potentially unreliable estimates. The current meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022364818) aims to identify potential sources of unreliability in prevalence estimates of cannabis use and use disorder among the general population (aged 12+). There was no specific hypothesis about overall prevalence estimate, but we expected significant variability (i.e., heterogeneity) in estimates based on factors such as country, year of data collection, and specific methodological factors (e.g., diagnostic instrument).
Method: Systematic searches identified manuscripts and reports documenting nationally representative lifetime or past-year cannabis use disorder prevalence estimates. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize prevalence estimates, evaluate heterogeneity, and test moderators.
Results: There were 39 manuscripts/reports included in analyses which resulted in 259 unique prevalence estimates spanning 1980-2013 and an aggregated sample size of 973,281 individuals. Past-year and lifetime prevalence estimates for cannabis use were 12.83% (95% CI: 11.15%, 14.71%) and 38.31% (95% CI: 35.92%, 40.76%) and those for cannabis use disorder were 2.59% (95% CI:2.30%, 2.90%) and 6.77% (95% CI: 4.89%, 9.30%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in estimates, which was partially explained by factors such as country, year of data collection, and methodological characteristics.
Conclusions: The significant heterogeneity in prevalence estimates as a function of methodological characteristics raises concerns about the generalizability of estimates. Recommendations for enhancing validity and reliability of these estimates are offered.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs began in 1940 as the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. It was founded by Howard W. Haggard, M.D., director of Yale University’s Laboratory of Applied Physiology. Dr. Haggard was a physiologist studying the effects of alcohol on the body, and he started the Journal as a way to publish the increasing amount of research on alcohol use, abuse, and treatment that emerged from Yale and other institutions in the years following the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. In addition to original research, the Journal also published abstracts summarizing other published documents dealing with alcohol. At Yale, Dr. Haggard built a large team of alcohol researchers within the Laboratory of Applied Physiology—including E.M. Jellinek, who became managing editor of the Journal in 1941. In 1943, to bring together the various alcohol research projects conducted by the Laboratory, Dr. Haggard formed the Section of Studies on Alcohol, which also became home to the Journal and its editorial staff. In 1950, the Section was renamed the Center of Alcohol Studies.