A latent class analysis of patterns of tobacco and cannabis use in Australia and their health‐related correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The shifting landscape in Australia's tobacco and cannabis policies and emerging new products and modes of administration may increase experimentation and the risks of addiction to these drugs. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional data from the 2019 National Drug Strategy and Household Survey (n = 22,015) of Australians aged 14 and above. Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct groups based on types of tobacco and cannabis products used. The socio-demographic, health-rated correlates and past-year substance use of each latent class was examined. RESULTS: A four-class solution was identified: co-use of tobacco and cannabis (2.4%), cannabis-only (5.5%), tobacco-only (8.0%) and non-user (84.0%). Males (odds ratio [OR] range 1.5-2.9), younger age (OR range 2.4-8.4), moderate to high psychological distress (OR range 1.3-3.0), using illicit substances in the last year (OR range 1.41-22.87) and high risk of alcohol use disorder (OR range 2.0-21.7) were more likely to be in the tobacco/cannabis use classes than non-users. Within the co-use class, 78.4% mixed tobacco with cannabis and 89.4% had used alcohol with cannabis at least once. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 16% of respondents used tobacco or cannabis, or both substances, and no major distinct subgroups were identified by the use of different product types. Mental health issues and the poly-substance use were more common in the class who were co-users of cannabis and tobacco. Existing policies need to minimise cannabis and tobacco-related harms to reduce the societal burden associated with both substances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".