O-124 Cannabis use and the risk of workplace injury: findings from a longitudinal study of Canadian workers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Introduction</h3> Social and legislative changes in cannabis use worldwide have led to renewed interest in the potential impacts of cannabis use on occupational safety. Previous studies examining the relationship between cannabis use and workplace injury have yielded mixed findings, likely due to methodological shortcomings, including cross-sectional study designs and broad measures of exposure that lack consideration for timing of use. Using data from a national longitudinal study of Canadian workers, the objective was to examine the relationship between cannabis use, including workplace use, and the risk of workplace injury. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> Surveys were conducted yearly from 2018 to 2020. Two exposures were examined: 1) general cannabis use (never, former, past-year) and past-year workplace cannabis use (no use, non-workplace use, workplace use), with workplace use referring to use two hours before work, use during work and/or use during breaks. The outcome was past-year workplace injury (yes/no). Workers participating in adjacent surveys were included in analyses (n=2,745). Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated between each exposure and workplace injury, using exposures measured at the survey immediately preceding the outcome. Models were adjusted for various sociodemographic, health, and work variables. <h3>Results</h3> When examining general cannabis use, compared to never use, no relationship was seen for former use (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.84–1.42), while past-year use was associated with a 30% increased risk of workplace injury (95%CI 0.99 -1.72). When examining workplace cannabis use, compared to no past-year use, there was no difference in risk of workplace injury for past-year non-workplace use (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.87–1.41). However, workers reporting past-year workplace use were at an almost two-fold increased risk of experiencing a workplace injury (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.30–2.66). <h3>Conclusions</h3> It is important to distinguish non-workplace and workplace use when considering workplace safety impacts of cannabis use.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».