Changes in self-reported cannabis use during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting mental health and substance use (MHSU) issues worldwide. The purpose of this study was to characterize the literature on changes in cannabis use during the pandemic and the factors associated with such changes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching peer-reviewed databases and grey literature from January 2020 to May 2022 using the Arksey and O'Malley Framework. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 4235 documents. We extracted data from 129 documents onto a data extraction form and collated results using content analytical techniques. RESULTS: Nearly half (48%) of the studies reported an increase/initiation of cannabis use, while 36% studies reported no change, and 16% reported a decrease/cessation of cannabis use during the pandemic. Factors associated with increased cannabis use included socio-demographic factors (e.g., younger age), health related factors (e.g., increased symptom burden), MHSU factors (e.g., anxiety, depression), pandemic-specific reactions (e.g., stress, boredom, social isolation), cannabis-related factors (e.g., dependence), and policy-related factors (e.g., legalization of medical/recreational cannabis). CONCLUSION: Public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic have the potential to significantly impact cannabis use. The pandemic has placed urgency on improving coping mechanisms and supports that help populations adapt to major and sudden life changes. To better prepare health care systems for future pandemics, wide-reaching education on how pandemic-related change impacts cannabis use is needed.

Cannabis and Mental Health: Adverse Outcomes and Self-Reported Impact of Cannabis Use by Mental Health Status.

Background: Cannabis can induce negative outcomes among consumers with mental health conditions. This study examined medical help-seeking behavior, patterns of adverse effects, and perceived impacts of cannabis among consumers with and without mental health conditions. Methods: Data came from the International Cannabis Policy Study, via online surveys conducted in 2018. Respondents included 6,413 past 12-month cannabis consumers aged 16-65, recruited from commercial panels in Canada and the US. Regression models examined differences in adverse health effects and perceived impact of cannabis among those with and without self-reported past 12-month experience of anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, psychosis. Results: Overall, 7% of past 12-month consumers reported seeking medical help for adverse effects of cannabis, including panic, dizziness, nausea. Help-seeking was greater for those with psychosis (13.8%: AOR = 1.78; 1.11-2.87), depression (8.9%: AOR = 1.57; 1.28-1.93), and bipolar disorder (10.1%: AOR = 1.53; 1.44-2.74). Additionally, 54.1% reported using cannabis to manage symptoms of mental health, with higher rates among those with bipolar (90.8%) and PTSD (90.7%). Consumers reporting >1 condition were more likely to perceive positive impacts on friendships, physical/mental health, family life, work, studies, quality of life (all p < .001). Consumers with psychosis were most likely to perceive negative effects across categories. Conclusion: For conditions with substantial evidence suggesting cannabis is harmful, greater help-seeking behaviors and self-perceived negative effects were observed. Consumers with mental health conditions generally perceive cannabis to have a positive impact on their lives. The relationship between cannabis and mental health is disorder specific and may include a combination of perceived benefits and harms.

Cannabis advertising, promotion and branding: Differences in consumer exposure between 'legal' and 'illegal' markets in Canada and the US.

Relatively little evidence exists on the impact of exposure to cannabis marketing, including potential differences between 'legal' and 'illegal' cannabis markets. The current study examined cannabis advertisement exposure and brand awareness across three jurisdictions: (i) all Canadian provinces immediately prior to legalization, (ii) US states that had not legalized non-medical cannabis (US 'illegal' states) as of August 2018, and (iii) US states that had legalized non-medical cannabis (US 'legal' states). Data are from Wave 1 of the International Cannabis Policy Study, an online survey conducted from August 27-October 7, 2018. The current sample (n = 26,710) included respondents from Canada (n = 9840), US illegal states (n = 9578), and US legal states (n = 7292). Regression models were fitted to examine cannabis advertisement exposure and brand awareness. Exposure to cannabis advertising and brand awareness differed across jurisdictions. Respondents in US legal states were more likely to report noticing advertisements, while those in Canada were more likely to report higher brand recall. Across jurisdictions, social media was cited among the most frequent channels from which cannabis advertisements were noticed in the past month. Higher rates of advertisement awareness and brand recall were also associated with greater frequency of cannabis use and self-reported proximity to cannabis retail stores. Results from this study indicate that advertisement exposure was higher in legal cannabis markets, although brand awareness for cannabis products was low across all jurisdictions. The findings reflect the relative novelty of legalized cannabis markets and provide a benchmark for evaluating the impact of cannabis advertising as legal markets become established.

Healthcare practitioner perceptions on barriers impacting cannabis prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Canadians seeking medical cannabis (MC) may encounter difficulties in finding a healthcare provider (HCP) who authorizes their access to it. Barriers that HCPs face in authorizing MC are unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate HCP opinions, knowledge, comfort, and practice in MC prescribing and counseling on recreational cannabis use, and whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected MC prescribing practices. METHODS: Eligible participants included HCPs (e.g., attending physicians, nurses, pharmacists) in Canada. A questionnaire evaluating their knowledge, comfort, and practice in medical and recreational cannabis was designed based on instruments developed in previous studies. Between April 13th-December 13th 2021, ninety-one healthcare associations were asked to distribute the survey to their members, and an advertisement was placed in the online Canadian Medical Association Journal. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Twenty-four organizations agreed to disseminate the survey and 70 individuals completed it. Of respondents, 71% were attending physicians or medical residents, while the remainder were nurses, pharmacists or other HCPs. Almost none (6%) received training in MC in professional school but 60% did receive other training (e.g., workshops, conferences). Over half (57%) received more questions regarding MC since recreational cannabis was legalized, and 82% reported having patients who use MC. However, 56% felt uncomfortable or ambivalent regarding their knowledge of MC, and 27% were unfamiliar with the requirements for obtaining MC in Canada. The most common symptoms for recommending MC were pain and nausea, whereas the most common conditions for recommending it were cancer and intractable pain. The strongest barrier to authorizing MC was uncertainty in safe and effective dosage and routes of administration. The strongest barrier to recommending or authorizing MC was the lack of research evidence demonstrating its safety and efficacy. During the pandemic, many respondents reported that a greater number of their patients used cannabis to relieve anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HCPs across Canada who responded to our survey are unfamiliar with topics related to MC. The strongest barriers appear to be lack of clinical research, and uncertainty in safe and effective MC administration. Increasing research, training, and knowledge may help HCPs feel more equipped to make informed treatment/prescribing decisions, which may help to improve access to MC.

Cannabis and mental health: Prevalence of use and modes of cannabis administration by mental health status.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis can have an adverse impact on some mental health conditions, while many consumers report using cannabis to manage or improve mental health. Little data exists on how patterns of cannabis use differ by mental health status. The current study examined the prevalence of cannabis use and modes of cannabis administration among consumers who experienced a mental health condition in the past 12-months. METHODS: Data came from the International Cannabis Policy Study (Wave 1). Online surveys were conducted from Aug - Oct 2018 with 25,747 respondents aged 16-65, recruited from commercial panels in Canada and the US. Multinomial and binary regression models examined differences in cannabis prevalence and use of nine cannabis product types among those with and without self-reported past 12-month experience of anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, and psychosis. RESULTS: Respondents with each of the five mental health conditions reported more frequent cannabis use than those without a mental health condition (p < .01). Past 12-month cannabis consumers who experienced mental health conditions were significantly more likely to use the most potent products (solid concentrates, THC vape oils, hash) (p < .05), with fewer differences for dried flower, edibles, and other forms. Patterns of use were similar across specific mental health conditions, with some differences among respondents reporting psychosis and bipolar disorder. CONCLUSION: Individuals experiencing mental health conditions report more frequent cannabis use and use of more potent product types. These findings highlight the need to target use of specific high potency products in prevention, treatment, and harm reduction among these populations.

How do researchers conceptualize and plan for the sustainability of their NIH R01 implementation projects?

BACKGROUND: Inadequate sustainability of implementation of evidence-based interventions has led to calls for research on how sustainability can be optimized. To advance our understanding of intervention sustainability, we explored how implementation researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their implemented interventions with studies funded by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). METHODS: We used sequential, mixed methods to explore how researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of the health interventions using (1) a document review of all active and completed US NIH R01 Grants and Equivalents reviewed within the Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (DIRH) Study Section between 2004 and 2016 and (2) a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients. RESULTS: We found 277 R01 profiles within the DIRH study section listed on the US NIH RePORTER website including 84 that were eligible for screening. Of the 84 unique projects, 76 (90.5%) had primary implementation outcomes. Of the 76 implementation project profiles, 51 (67.1%) made references to sustainability and none referred to sustainability planning. In both profiles and interviews, researchers conceptualized sustainability primarily as the continued delivery of interventions, programs, or implementation strategies. Few researchers referenced frameworks with sustainability constructs and offered limited information on how they operationalized frameworks. Researchers described broad categories of approaches and strategies to promote sustainability and key factors that may influence researchers to plan for sustainability, such as personal beliefs, self-efficacy, perception of their role, and the challenges of the grant funding system. CONCLUSIONS: We explored how US NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their interventions. Our results identified the need to test, consolidate, and provide guidance on how to operationalize sustainability frameworks, and to develop strategies on how funders and researchers can advance sustainability research.