High-Risk Cannabis Use: A Proposal of an Operational Definition through Delphi Methodology for Scientific Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis ranks as one of the most widely used psychoactive substances worldwide. Its usage has been reported as a risk factor for developing a variety of physical and mental health issues, alongside social and economic problems. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), hazardous (or high-risk) substance use is defined as "a pattern of substance use that increases the risk of harmful consequences for the user." The primary objective of this study was to achieve a consensus on an operational definition of high-risk cannabis use suitable for a European jurisdiction (Spain). METHODS: A three round Delphi study was conducted. The Delphi technique entails group decision-making and iterative forecasting by consulting a panel of experts and conducting systematic feedback rounds. An online survey was distributed among a diverse expert panel comprising professionals from Spain working on fields related to cannabis use (research, policy planning, and clinical professionals). One-hundred ninety-nine invitations were sent to experts, of which forty-five (22.6%) accepted to participate. All participants were provided the option to revise a background document with the latest compiled scientific evidence and guidelines related to health and social conditions associated to cannabis usage. This background document also proposed the quantification of dose using a standardized unit established for the population of Spain (the Standard Joint Unit or SJU) based on quantity of cannabis main psychoactive constituent, 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) (1 SJU = 1 joint = 0.25 g of cannabis = 7 mg of 9-THC). Three rounds of Likert scale and open-ended questions were administered until consensus, defined as ≥75% agreement, was attained. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on defining high-risk cannabis use as the usage of more than 4 SJU (>28 mg THC) per week or any use of cannabis with potency >10% THC. Concurrent use of cannabis with other drugs was also considered high risk, while the smoked route was considered the riskiest administration route. It was also agreed that vulnerable groups for high-risk cannabis use (for whom any pattern of cannabis use represents high risk of harm) include individuals under the age of 21, pregnant or breastfeeding women, individuals with psychiatric history, those with medical health issues related to cannabis use, professional drivers and heavy machine operators. CONCLUSION: This operational definition of high-risk cannabis use for Spain elucidates usage patterns and individual vulnerability factors predictive of heightened harm. Its adoption holds potential to inform decision-making among individuals, professionals, and policy-makers, facilitating evidence-based interventions aimed at prevention and risk reduction.

The relationship between motivations for cannabis consumption and problematic use. / Relación entre las motivaciones para consumir y el consumo problemático de cannabis.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic screening of problematic cannabis use does not include the motivations that lead to consumption, although from a person-centered perspective this is fundamental. The present study explores the motivations for cannabis use in adults and its relationship with cannabis use patterns and problematic use. METHOD: Adult cannabis users (previous 60 days) were recruited in the province of Barcelona (n = 468). Information on their sociodemographic data, cannabis use pattern, Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) and the main motivation for use were collected. Motivations were categorized a posteriori according to the Marijuana Motives Measures (MMM). A descriptive and inferential analysis was carried out to link the motivations to sociodemographic variables, consumption pattern and probability of suffering problematic cannabis use (CAST). RESULTS: Using cannabis to heighten positive feelings (35%), out of habit (29%) and to cope with negative feelings (25%) were the most frequent motivations. In comparison to other motivations, coping is related to a greater quantity of cannabis used (4 vs 3 joints per day, p = 0.005), higher probability of problematic cannabis use (77% vs 64%, p = 0.05), and greater social vulnerability (unemployment 56% vs 37%, p = 0.001; and low educational level 14% vs 8%, p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Coping as a motivation for cannabis use is present in one out of four users and is a marker of social vulnerability, greater quantity of cannabis used and higher risk of problematic use. Patient-centered care together with preventive (emotional and social education) and clinical strategies (psychotherapy) can be useful for this population at higher risk.

Introducción. El cribado sistemático del consumo problemático de cannabis no incluye las motivaciones que llevan al consumo, aunque desde una perspectiva de atención centrada en la persona, este dato sea fundamental. El presente estudio explora las motivaciones de consumo de cannabis en adultos y su relación con el patrón de consumo y consumo problemático.  Método. Consumidores adultos de cannabis (en los últimos 60 días) fueron reclutados en la provincia de Barcelona (n=468). Se pasó un cuestionario para explorar datos sociodemográficos, patrón de uso, la Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) y la motivación principal para el consumo. Los motivos de consumo se categorizaron a posteriori según la Marijuana Motives Measures (MMM). Se realizó un análisis descriptivo e inferencial para explorar la relación entre la motivación categorizada y variables sociodemográficas, patrón de consumo y puntuaciones de la CAST.Resultados. Consumir cannabis para mejorar las emociones positivas (35%), por costumbre (29%) y para afrontar emociones negativas (25%) fueron las motivaciones más frecuentes. Respecto a otras motivaciones, el "afrontamiento" se relaciona con mayor cantidad consumida (4 vs 3 porros/día, p = 0,005), mayor probabilidad de tener un consumo problemático (77% vs 64%, p = 0,05), y mayor vulnerabilidad social (desempleo 56% vs 37%, p = 0,001; y bajo nivel de estudios (14% vs 8%, p = 0,042)). Conclusiones. El afrontamiento está presente en uno de cada cuatro usuarios de cannabis, es un marcador de vulnerabilidad social y de mayor cantidad de consumo de cannabis y probabilidad de consumo problemático. Una atención centrada en la persona junto con estrategias preventivas (educación emocional y social) y clínicas (psicoterapia) pueden ser de utilidad en esta población de mayor riesgo.

Relación entre las motivaciones para consumir y el consumo problemático de cannabis / The relationship between motivations for cannabis consumption and problematic use

INTRODUCCIÓN: El cribado sistemático del consumo problemático de cannabis no incluye las motivaciones que llevan al consumo, aunque desde una perspectiva de atención centrada en la persona, este dato sea fundamental. El presente estudio explora las motivaciones de consumo de cannabis en adultos y su relación con el patrón de consumo y consumo problemático. Método. Consumidores adultos de cannabis (en los últimos 60 días) fueron reclutados en la provincia de Barcelona (n = 468). Se pasó un cuestionario para explorar datos sociodemográficos, patrón de uso, la Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) y la motivación principal para el consumo. Los motivos de consumo se categorizaron a posteriori según la Marijuana Motives Measures (MMM). Se realizó un análisis descriptivo e inferencial para explorar la relación entre la motivación categorizada y variables sociodemográficas, patrón de consumo y puntuaciones de la CAST. RESULTADOS: Consumir cannabis para mejorar las emociones positivas (35%), por costumbre (29%) y para afrontar emociones negativas (25%) fueron las motivaciones más frecuentes. Respecto a otras motivaciones, el "afrontamiento" se relaciona con mayor cantidad consumida (4 vs 3 porros/día, p = 0,005), mayor probabilidad de tener un consumo problemático (77% vs 64%, p = 0,05), y mayor vulnerabilidad social (desempleo 56% vs 37%, p = 0,001; y bajo nivel de estudios (14% vs 8%, p = 0,042)). CONCLUSIONES: El afrontamiento está presente en uno de cada cuatro usuarios de cannabis, es un marcador de vulnerabilidad social y de mayor cantidad de consumo de cannabis y probabilidad de consumo problemático. Una atención centrada en la persona junto con estrategias preventivas (educación emocional y social) y clínicas (psicoterapia) pueden ser de utilidad en esta población de mayor riesgo

INTRODUCTION: Systematic screening of problematic cannabis use does not include the motivations that lead to consumption, although from a person-centered perspective this is fundamental. The present study explores the motivations for cannabis use in adults and its relationship with cannabis use patterns and problematic use. Method. Adult cannabis users (previous 60 days) were recruited in the province of Barcelona (n = 468). Information on their sociodemographic data, cannabis use pattern, Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST) and the main motivation for use were collected. Motivations were categorized a posteriori according to the Marijuana Motives Measures (MMM). A descriptive and inferential analysis was carried out to link the motivations to sociodemographic variables, consumption pattern and probability of suffering problematic cannabis use (CAST). RESULTS: Using cannabis to heighten positive feelings (35%), out of habit (29%) and to cope with negative feelings (25%) were the most frequent motivations. In comparison to other motivations, coping is related to a greater quantity of cannabis used (4 vs 3 joints per day, p = 0.005), higher probability of problematic cannabis use (77% vs 64%, p = 0.05), and greater social vulnerability (unemployment 56% vs 37%, p = 0.001; and low educational level 14% vs 8%, p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Coping as a motivation for cannabis use is present in one out of four users and is a marker of social vulnerability, greater quantity of cannabis used and higher risk of problematic use. Patient-centered care together with preventive (emotional and social education) and clinical strategies (psychotherapy) can be useful for this population at higher risk

Post-truth Cannabis use: back to evidence-based medicine. / Posverdad del consumo de cannabis: de regreso a la medicina basada en la evidencia.

Editorial.

Editorial.

Posverdad del consumo de cannabis: de regreso a la medicina basada en la evidencia / Post-truth Cannabis use: back to evidence-based medicine

No disponible

The Standard Joint Unit.

OBJECTIVE: Reliable data on cannabis quantities is required to improve assessment of cannabis consumption for epidemiological analysis and clinical assessment, consequently a Standard Joint Unit (SJU) based on quantity of 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) has been established. METHODOLOGY: Naturalistic study of a convenience sample recruited from February 2015-June 2016 in universities, leisure spaces, mental health services and cannabis clubs in Barcelona. Adults, reporting cannabis use in the last 60 days, without cognitive impairment or language barriers, answered a questionnaire on cannabis use and were asked to donate a joint to further determine their 9-THC and Cannabidiol (CBD) content. RESULTS: 492 participants donated 315 valid joints. Donators were on average 29 years old, mostly men (77%), single (75%), with at least secondary studies (73%) and in active employment (63%). Marijuana joints (N=232) contained a median of 6.56mg of 9-THC (Interquartile range-IQR=10,22) and 0.02mg of CBD (IQR=0.02); hashish joints (N=83) a median of 7.94mg of 9-THC (IQR=10,61) and 3.24mg of CBD (IQR=3.21). Participants rolled 4 joints per gram of cannabis and paid 5€ per gram (median values). CONCLUSION: Consistent 9-THC-content in joints lead to a SJU of 7mg of 9-THC, the integer number closest to the median values shared by both cannabis types. Independently if marijuana or hashish, 1 SJU = 1 joint = 0.25 g of cannabis = 7 mg of 9-THC. For CBD, only hashish SJU contained relevant levels. Similarly to the Standard Drink Unit for alcohol, the SJU is useful for clinical, epidemiological and research purposes.

Evaluación del Observatorio de Salud de Asturias: métricas de web y redes sociales, y opinión de los profesionales de la salud / Evaluation of the Health Observatory of Asturias (Spain): web and social network metrics and health professionals’ opinions

Objetivo Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar el Observatorio de Salud de Asturias (OBSA), que recoge y difunde, mediante web y redes sociales, datos de salud de Asturias. Método Se trata de un estudio transversal realizado entre 2012 y 2013. Incluye una evaluación de proceso, mediante el registro de métricas de alcance de la web del OBSA y de Facebook y Twitter, y mediante un cuestionario online que analiza la utilización y la satisfacción por parte de los responsables de salud de Asturias. Además, incluye una evaluación de resultados con diseño no experimental, que estima potenciales efectos mediante el cuestionario. Resultados El número total de visitas a la web aumentó durante el año 2012, con más de 37.000 visitas. El cuestionario (n=43) mostró que el 72,1% de los profesionales conocían el OBSA, y de éstos un 81,5% lo utilizaban. Además, la mayoría declaró estar satisfecho con el OBSA y afirmó que fomenta la cooperación entre profesionales (51,61%).Conclusión El OBSA es conocido y consultado por la mayoría de los profesionales encuestados, y está consiguiendo alcanzar algunos de sus principales objetivos, como informar y estimular el debate. De acuerdo con los resultados obtenidos, las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación podrían desempeñar un importante papel en la presentación de datos de salud en un formato más interactivo y accesible (AU)

Objective To evaluate the Health Observatory of Asturias (Observatorio de Salud de Asturias [OBSA]), which collects and disseminates health data from Asturias through a website and social networks. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted between 2012 and 2013. The study included a process evaluation that analyzed the reach of the OBSA's website, Facebook and Twitter accounts through web metrics and the use made by health professionals in Asturias of these media. Satisfaction was assessed through an online questionnaire. To estimate the potential effects of the OBSA, the study also included an evaluation of the results with a non-experimental design. Results The total number of visits to the website increased in 2012, with more than 37,000 visits. The questionnaire (n=43) showed that 72.1% of the health professionals knew of the OBSA and that 81.5% of them had used it. Most health professionals reported they were satisfied with the OBSA and believed that it encouraged cooperation among professionals (51.6%).ConclusionThe OBSA is known and consulted by most health professionals and is achieving some of its main objectives: to inform health staff and stimulate discussion. According to the results, information and communication technologies could play an important role in the presentation of health data in a more interactive and accessible way (AU)

[Evaluation of the Health Observatory of Asturias (Spain): web and social network metrics and health professionals' opinions]. / Evaluación del Observatorio de Salud de Asturias: métricas de web y redes sociales, y opinión de los profesionales de la salud.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Health Observatory of Asturias (Observatorio de Salud de Asturias [OBSA]), which collects and disseminates health data from Asturias through a website and social networks. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 2012 and 2013. The study included a process evaluation that analyzed the reach of the OBSA's website, Facebook and Twitter accounts through web metrics and the use made by health professionals in Asturias of these media. Satisfaction was assessed through an online questionnaire. To estimate the potential effects of the OBSA, the study also included an evaluation of the results with a non-experimental design. RESULTS: The total number of visits to the website increased in 2012, with more than 37,000 visits. The questionnaire (n=43) showed that 72.1% of the health professionals knew of the OBSA and that 81.5% of them had used it. Most health professionals reported they were satisfied with the OBSA and believed that it encouraged cooperation among professionals (51.6%). CONCLUSION: The OBSA is known and consulted by most health professionals and is achieving some of its main objectives: to inform health staff and stimulate discussion. According to the results, information and communication technologies could play an important role in the presentation of health data in a more interactive and accessible way.