Interest in online supports and brief self-help interventions among cannabis using Canadian university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a fraction of problematic cannabis users ever seek treatment from specialty addiction services. This gap could be reduced via online brief interventions and self-help resources; however, it is not clear whether cannabis users would be interested in accessing those tools. We examined whether cannabis use, motives for using cannabis, and protective behavioral strategies predicted hypothetical interest in accessing online self-help resources. We hypothesized that greater interest in accessing self-help materials would be predicted by (1) problematic cannabis use, (2) using cannabis to cope with negative affect, and (3) fewer cannabis-related protective behaviors. These predictions were tested in a secondary analyses of data from 649 cannabis-using Canadian university students (42.5% male; M age = 22.5) participating in a population survey. Data were analyzed using set wise hierarchical multiple linear regression models to predict hypothetical interest in online self-help resources, from cannabis use, motives, and protective behaviors. Problematic cannabis users reported more interest in hypothetically accessing online supports than non-problematic users. Problematic cannabis use, coping, and expansion motives, and protective behaviors were positively associated with hypothetical interest in accessing online resources. Findings suggest that online self-help interventions might be an effective public health approach to reduce cannabis use among Canadian university students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".