Revealing the Meaning of Cannabis Use as an Occupation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occupational science and occupational therapy typically perceive occupations as promoting health and well-being. However, this perspective overlooks the many occupations that are viewed as illegal, unhealthy, or risky, such as drug use. Due to its negative association with health, drug use is perceived as not holding significance or meaning in people's lives. Objective: This study explores how individuals perceive and describe the meaning of their cannabis use in the context of their lives, from an occupational perspective. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using Levac et al.' modifications to Arksey and O'Malley's framework. To examine the peer-reviewed literature, 7 databases were searched using terms related to cannabis and meaning. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the selected studies, and reflexive thematic analysis identified cross-study themes. Results: Fourteen studies were selected. Most studies have been published since 2008, with 5 published in the last 2 years. Four themes were identified across the studies: (a) preserving life; (b) navigating the routines of everyday life; (c) understanding the self, identity, and belonging; and (d) expanding the view of the world. Conclusions: Cannabis use was revealed in this study as a support for navigating occupational routines and enhancing occupational repertoires and engagement, feelings of belonging, and collective user identities. As such, substance abuse treatment practices, including those provided by occupational therapists, should recognize the potential significance of cannabis use within people's lives. Using a harm reduction approach, occupational therapists can acknowledge the ways in which clients use cannabis to manage their daily routines, while also focusing on supporting clients to reduce the ill-effects of cannabis. As individuals become more engaged in occupations that are significant in their lives, their need for and meaning of cannabis use may change leading to a possible reduction in its use and a shift in their identity construction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".