Use and Perceptions of Cannabidiol Products in Canada and in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to characterize use and perceptions of cannabidiol (CBD) products. Materials and Methods: Participants aged 16–65 years in Canada ( n =15,042) and the United States ( n =30,288) completed measures on prevalence and patterns of CBD product use and perceptions of CBD oil as part of the 2019 International Cannabis Policy Study online survey. Results: Past 12-month CBD product use was significantly more prevalent among respondents in the United States (26.1%) than in Canada (16.2%). Consumers in the United States and Canada reported using a range of CBD products, including drops (46.3% vs. 47.3%, respectively), topicals (26.0% vs. 16.7%), edibles/foods (23.8% vs. 17.6%), vape oils (18.9% vs. 13.3%), capsules (13.3% vs. 16.7%), and dried flower (10.1% vs. 16.1%). CBD was most commonly reported for management of pain, anxiety, and depression. Over half of CBD consumers in both countries reported that CBD oil was beneficial for health. Conclusions: Use of CBD products is common in both the United States and Canada, primarily to manage self-reported health conditions for which there is little or no evidence of efficacy. Clearer public health messaging regarding the therapeutic effects of CBD is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".