Assessing public health messaging about cannabis edibles: perspectives from canadian young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, and the prevalence of edibles as a preferred mode of consumption for young adults, there is a need for evidence-based youth-targeted public health messaging on edibles that resonates with this audience. To explore Canadian young adult views on existing public health messaging regarding cannabis edibles, we conducted 8 focus groups with 57 university students ages 18 to 24 (32 women; 25 men). A descriptive qualitative approach was used, informed by the importance of process evaluation. Five main themes/concepts emerged from the focus group discussions. These related to: (1) message tone; (2) type and quality of information; (3) message format and venue; (4) relatability; and (5) spokespeople. Results also revealed that gender influences both reception to spokespeople and the quantity of information desired in educational campaigns. Findings informed five recommendations for future Canadian public health campaigns, including avoiding negative or moralizing messages; providing specific information about edibles and their effects; creating short messages for social media; being cautious when striving to create “relatable” campaigns; and finding spokespeople based on authenticity and expertise. Our findings reinforce the importance of youth input in the creation of such campaigns and suggest that young people are receptive to educational messages aligned with harm reduction principles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".