Assessing the prevalence and correlates of prenatal cannabis consumption in an urban Canadian population: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recreational cannabis use was legalized in Canada in October 2018. We aimed to determine the prevalence and correlates of cannabis consumption among pregnant individuals in a single Canadian city following national legalization. METHODS: Over the period May to October 2019, we distributed an anonymous cross-sectional survey to pregnant patients attending family practice, midwifery, and low-risk and high-risk obstetrics clinics in Hamilton, Ontario. Eligibility was based on English literacy and current pregnancy. The survey included questions regarding lifetime and in-pregnancy cannabis use, intent for postpartum use and patterns of use. We also collected demographic information. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed logistic regression analyses to explore the relations between cannabis consumption and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 531 pregnant individuals approached, 478 agreed and were able to participate, for a 90% participation rate. Among these 478 respondents, 54 (11%) reported consuming cannabis at some point during the pregnancy and 20 (4%) reported currently consuming cannabis. Among the 460 respondents who intended to breastfeed, 23 (5%) planned to consume cannabis during the postpartum period. Of 20 current users, 13 (65%) reported consuming cannabis at least weekly and 19 (95%) reported nausea, sleep problems or anxiety as reasons for use. Respondents without postsecondary education had 10.0-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-23.5) greater odds of prenatal cannabis consumption than university-educated respondents. In addition, respondents who reported that their partners used cannabis had 3.9-fold (95% CI 2.2-7.3) greater odds of prenatal cannabis consumption than those who reported that their partners did not use cannabis. INTERPRETATION: Lower educational attainment and partners' cannabis consumption were associated with greater odds of inpregnancy cannabis use. These results may help to inform early intervention strategies to decrease cannabis consumption during this vulnerable period of fetal and neonatal development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".