High‐intensity cannabis use is associated with retention in opioid agonist treatment: a longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cannabis use is common among people on opioid agonist treatment (OAT), causing concern for some care providers. However, there is limited and conflicting evidence on the impact of cannabis use on OAT outcomes. Given the critical role of retention in OAT in reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality, we aimed to estimate the association of at least daily cannabis use on the likelihood of retention in treatment among people initiating OAT. As a secondary aim we tested the impacts of less frequent cannabis use. DESIGN: Data were drawn from two community-recruited prospective cohorts of people who use illicit drugs (PWUD). Participants were followed for a median of 81 months (interquartile range = 37-130). SETTING: Vancouver, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: This study comprised a total of 820 PWUD (57.8% men, 59.4% of Caucasian ethnicity, 32.2% HIV-positive) initiating OAT between December 1996 and May 2016. The proportion of women was higher among HIV-negative participants, with no other significant differences. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was retention in OAT, defined as remaining in OAT (methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone-based) for two consecutive 6-month follow-up periods. The primary explanatory variable was cannabis use (at least daily versus less than daily) during the same 6-month period. Confounders assessed included: socio-demographic characteristics, substance use patterns and social-structural exposures. FINDINGS: In adjusted analysis, at least daily cannabis use was positively associated with retention in OAT [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.41]. Our secondary analysis showed that compared with non-cannabis users, at least daily users had increased odds of retention in OAT (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02-1.43), but not less than daily users (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.87-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among people who use illicit drugs initiating opioid agonist treatment in Vancouver, at least daily cannabis use was associated with approximately 21% greater odds of retention in treatment compared with less than daily consumption.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".