Increase and decrease of other substance use during recovery from cannabis use disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about whether recovery from one addiction is associated with increased or decreased risk of subsequent other addictions. This study explored self-reported increases and decreases in other substance use among individuals who have recovered from cannabis use disorder. Media recruitment was used to obtain a sample of 119 individuals with lifetime but not past year cannabis use disorder (30% female). The median length of recovery was 5.0 years. Results showed that both increase and decrease in the use of other substances is very common in recovery from cannabis use. In general, other substance use decreased more than it increased. Individuals who reported only a decrease in other substance use (39%) and individuals who reported both increases and decreases in various substances (21%) reported a greater degree of cannabis-related problems and treatment-seeking than individuals who only reported an increase (26%) or no change (14%). Individuals who only increased use of other substances reported fewer cannabis-related problems and were more likely to have had self-directed recoveries. They were also less likely to use helping relationships (e.g., friends, family) as a recovery process and self-help group involvement as a maintenance strategy. Their recoveries seem to have been less socially influenced and socially imbedded than individuals who reduced other substance use. The findings suggest that treatment involvement and social influences may successfully discourage use of other substances upon recovery from cannabis. However, the impact of such use or lack of use on individuals' functioning needs to be clarified in future research. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".