The effects tailored interventions on cannabis use motives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The motives for cannabis affect on cannabis use and cannabis use consequences. Coping with stress is among the frequent motives for cannabis use. However, non stressed youth may use cannabis for self-enhancing motives like boosting confidence. Both motives are associated with higher frequency of cannabis use and more negative consequences (e.g., effects on schoolwork quality). Interventions targeting these distinctive motives may need to be tailored to assist youth trying to reduce cannabis use. The purposes of this study were: to examine the effect of cannabis use interventions on the change in motives of use; and whether motives for use are associated with hours per week using cannabis. Methods: Participants were from a cross national study including US and Canadian youth (n= 781). Participants included in the current analysis were from two Canadian Universities (n = 397, 54% female, median age = 21) were randomized into either the Cannabis eCHECKUP TO GO or Healthy Stress Management (HSM) intervention. Both interventions were administrated online and assessed at baseline and at a 4- to 6-week follow-up. Eligible youth reported using cannabis more than once a week and wanted to reduce their cannabis use. The 19 items to the question “what do you like about cannabis” were used as an assessment of motives for use (e.g., I feel more courageous, I feel more confident, cannabis helps me reduce stress, cannabis helps me sleep). Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that a 2-factor model of cannabis use motives (self-confidence and stress-coping) fit the data adequately (CFI = 0.795, RMSEA [90% CI] = .063 [.057, .069]) after removing 2 poorly fitting items. Results: Across conditions self-confidence motives (T1: eCHECKUP condition M = 4.05(2.55), HSM condition M = 4.13(2.43); T2: eCHECKUP condition M = 4.09(2.50), HSM condition M = 4.36(2.28)) were endorse less than stress-coping motives (T1: eCHECKUP condition M = 6.48(1.92), HSM condition M = 6.25(1.78); T2: eCHECKUP condition M = 6.20(1.99), HSM condition M = 6.32(1.96)). Stress-coping motives were significantly correlated with the time spent high (hours a week) (T1 r= .21, T2: r=.26). A repeated measures MANOVA showed a significant interaction between time and intervention condition for the stress-coping motives only (F(1)= 4.08, p = .04). Participants in the Healthy Stress Management condition reported a significant decrease in the amount of stress-coping motives at the follow-up. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that motives of cannabis use can change over the course of a short online intervention for students seeking to reduce their use. In particular, the Healthy Stress Management condition helped participants reduce their stress-coping motives at T2. Neither intervention affected self confidence motives in the short term. These may be harder to address and may fuel continued use over time, even for youth hoping to change.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".