Pregnant People's Perspectives On Cannabis Use During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Integrative Mixed‐Methods Research Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rates of perinatal cannabis use are rising, despite clinical evidence about the potential for harm. Accordingly, pregnant and lactating people who perceive a benefit from cannabis use may have a difficult time making informed decisions about cannabis use. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of mixed-methods research to synthesize existing knowledge on the perspectives of pregnant people and their partners about cannabis use in pregnancy. Six health and social science databases were searched up until May 30, 2021. There were no methodological, time, or geographic limits applied. We employed a convergent integrative approach to the inductive analysis of findings from all studies. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies describing views of 17,781 pregnant and postpartum people about cannabis use in pregnancy. No studies describing the views of partners were identified, and only one study specifically addressed the perspectives of lactating people. Comparative analysis revealed that whether cannabis was studied alone or grouped with other substances resulted in significant diversity in descriptions of participant decision-making priorities and perceptions of risks and benefits. Studies of cannabis alone demonstrated a complex decision-making process whereby perceived benefits are balanced against the available information about risk, which is often unclear and uncertain. Clear and helpful information was difficult to identify, and health care providers were not described as a helpful and trusted resource for decision-making. DISCUSSION: Decision-making about cannabis use is difficult for pregnant and lactating people who perceive a benefit from this use, although this decisional difficulty is seldom reflected in studies that examine cannabis as one of multiple substances that pregnant or lactating people may use. Our review suggests several approaches clinicians may take to encourage open and supportive conversations to facilitate informed decisions about cannabis use during the perinatal period.
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 | 0.041 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".