Is Recovery from Cannabis Dependence Possible? Factors that Help or Hinder Recovery in a National Sample of Canadians with a History of Cannabis Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify among Canadian adults who have ever been dependent upon cannabis, the prevalence of risk and protective factors associated with (1) cannabis remission, (2) the absence of psychiatric disorders or addictions in the past year (APD), and (3) positive mental health (PMH). METHOD: = 20, 777, of whom 336 have a history of cannabis dependence) was used. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were conducted. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WHO-CIDI) measures were used to determine lifetime cannabis dependence, past-year remission from cannabis depression, and the absence of psychiatric disorders in the past year (APD) (i.e., no suicidal ideation, depressive episodes, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, or any substance dependence). PMH is comprised of three factors: APD, happiness or life satisfaction and social and psychological well-being. RESULTS: Among those with a history of cannabis dependence, 72% were in remission from cannabis dependence. Although 53% were free of major psychiatric disorders and any substance dependence and 43% of respondents were in PMH, these percentages were dramatically lower than those without a history of cannabis dependence (92% and 74%, respectively). Positive outcomes were more common among women, older respondents, those with higher levels of social support, and those who had never had major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder. CONCLUSION: Although many Canadians with a history of cannabis dependence achieve remission and a large minority are truly resilient and achieve PMH, many are failing to thrive. Targeted outreach is warranted for the most vulnerable individuals with a history of cannabis dependence (e.g., men, younger respondents, those with low social support and a history of mental illness).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".