Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35365236›Full record

ArticleJournal of cannabis research2022

Young adults' familiarity with different cannabis product terms: the need for standardized cannabis surveys.

S Berberian, M L Broussard, C Tully, V Methuku, D A Pardini, M H Meier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S BerberianDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA.
M L BroussardCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
C TullyDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA.
V MethukuDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA.
D A PardiniDepartment of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
M H MeierDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA. madeline.meier@asu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-9304

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCannabis legalization has resulted in the proliferation of cannabis products. Participants' familiarity with terms for these products may have implications for assessment, as unfamiliarity with particular terms may result in under-reports of use.

methodsA convenience sample of 861 college students from one U.S. university completed a survey in the spring of 2020 about their familiarity with a variety of cannabis product terms and use of a variety of cannabis products.

resultsParticipants varied in their familiarity with cannabis product terms. For example, with regard to terms for cannabis concentrates with very high concentrations of THC, 85% of participants reported being familiar with the term "wax pen or THC oil," but only 27% reported being familiar with the term "butane hash oil (BHO)" (i.e., the oil that composes most concentrates). Moreover, of participants who reported use of concentrates based on selecting pictures of the products they had used (n = 324, 40%), 99% (n = 322) reported having seen a "wax pen or THC oil" based on a written list of product terms, whereas only 20% (n = 65) reported having seen "butane hash oil (BHO)." This suggests that asking about use of "butane hash oil" use may result in lower rates of cannabis concentrate use than asking about use of "wax pen/THC oil." With regard to terms for marijuana flower, 29% of participants (n = 248) reported being unfamiliar with the term marijuana "buds or flowers." Of participants who reported use of marijuana flower based on selecting pictures of the products they had used (38% of the sample, n = 329), only 86% (n = 282) reported having seen marijuana "buds or flowers" based on a written list of product terms. This suggests that asking about use of marijuana "buds or flowers" use could result in under-reporting due to lack of familiarity with that term. Finally, when asked to select pictures of the cannabis product(s) that participants thought constituted "marijuana," participants most commonly selected pictures of marijuana flower (93%), followed by wax pen/THC oil (57%) and edibles (49%).

conclusionsYoung adults vary in their familiarity with cannabis product terms, and some may under-report cannabis use in surveys that rely on written cannabis product terms. Young adults also differ in terms of which cannabis products they think constitute "marijuana." Although participants' familiarity with specific cannabis product terms in this sample may not generalize to other populations, results highlight the need for standardized surveys of cannabis use that incorporate pictures of cannabis products to overcome issues related to variability in familiarity with cannabis product terms.

Identifiers

PMID35365236
PMCPMC8974070

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.