Self-reported cannabis use characteristics, patterns and helpfulness among medical cannabis users
Self-reported cannabis use characteristics, patterns and helpfulness among medical cannabis users
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/00952990.2013.821477
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Babson, Kimberly A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bonn-Miller, Marcel O.;Boden, Matthew Tyler;Babson, Kimberly A.
目的：很少有研究调查了美国大麻使用合法化各州医用大麻使用者的人口统计和症状概况。方法：在目前的横断面研究中，我们调查了217名目前接受医用大麻的成年人的人口统计资料，以及在(i)心理障碍和疼痛症状方面的问题使用和感知有用性的差异，以及（ii）使用动机。结果：调查结果表明，医用大麻使用者(i)使用并认为大麻对多种情况有益，其中一些情况在州一级没有明确规定或允许使用大麻；（ii）报告与常规使用者的人口估计值相比的类似的无序使用率。此外，一些心理障碍症状（如抑郁）和各种使用动机（如应对）可以预测有问题的大麻使用，而据报告，大麻对那些有几种心理症状（如创伤性侵入）的人以及报告因社交焦虑原因使用大麻的人特别有帮助。结论：鉴于目前关于医用大麻合法化的辩论，以及更普遍地说，缺乏为这种辩论提供信息的经验数据，从未来研究方向的角度讨论了结果。
Objectives: Little research has investigated the demographic and symptom profile of medical cannabis users in states in the USA that have legalized cannabis use. Methods: In the present cross-sectional study, we investigated the demographic profile of 217 adults currently receiving medical cannabis, as well as differences in problematic use and perceived helpfulness in terms of (i) symptoms of psychological disorders and pain, and (ii) motives for use. Results: Findings indicated that medical cannabis users (i) use and perceive cannabis to be beneficial for multiple conditions, some for which cannabis is not specifically prescribed or allowed at the state level; and (ii) report similar rates of disordered use as compared with population estimates among regular users. Furthermore, problematic cannabis use was predicted by several symptoms of psychological disorders (e.g. depression) and a variety of use motives (e.g. coping), while cannabis was reported as particularly helpful among those with several psychological symptoms (e.g. traumatic intrusions), as well as those reporting use for social anxiety reasons. Conclusions: Results are discussed in terms of future directions for research given the current debates regarding legalization of cannabis for medical purposes and, more generally, the lack of empirical data to inform such debates.