MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380577691 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20220081

Prevalence of depressive symptoms and cannabis use among adult cigarette smokers in Canada: cross-sectional findings from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Canada Smoking and Vaping Survey

2023· article· en· W4380577691 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shannon Gravely, Pete Driezen, Erin A. McClure, Danielle M. Smith, Geoffrey T. Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsCannabisMedicineTobacco controlCross-sectional studyDepression (economics)Environmental healthNicotineDepressive symptomsYoung adultDemographyPublic healthPsychiatryGerontologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Tobacco smoking and cannabis use are independently associated with depression, and evidence suggests that people who use both tobacco and cannabis (co-consumers) are more likely to report mental health problems, greater nicotine dependence and alcohol misuse than those who use either product exclusively. We examined prevalence of cannabis use and depressive symptoms among Canadian adults who smoke cigarettes and tested whether co-consumers of cannabis and tobacco were more likely to report depressive symptoms than cigarette-only smokers; we also tested whether cigarette-only smokers and co-consumers differed on cigarette dependence measures, motivation to quit smoking and risky alcohol use by the presence or absence of depressive symptoms. <h3>Methods</h3> We analyzed cross-sectional data from adult (age ≥ 18 yr) current (≥ monthly) cigarette smokers from the Canadian arm of the 2020 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Canadian respondents were recruited from Leger’s online probability panel across all 10 provinces. We estimated weighted percentages for depressive symptoms and cannabis use among all respondents and tested whether co-consumers (≥ monthly use of cannabis and cigarettes) were more likely to report depressive symptoms than cigarette-only smokers. Weighted multivariable regression models were used to identify differences between co-consumers and cigarette-only smokers with and without depressive symptoms. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 2843 current smokers were included in the study. The prevalence of past-year, past-30-day and daily cannabis use was 44.0%, 33.2% and 16.1%, respectively (30.4% reported using cannabis at least monthly). Among all respondents, 30.0% screened positive for depressive symptoms, with co-consumers being more likely to report depressive symptoms (36.5%) than those who did not report current cannabis use (27.4%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Depressive symptoms were associated with planning to quit smoking (<i>p</i> = 0.01), having made multiple attempts to quit smoking (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), the perception of being very addicted to cigarettes (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and strong urges to smoke (<i>p</i> = 0.001), whereas cannabis use was not (all <i>p</i> ≥ 0.05). Cannabis use was associated with high-risk alcohol consumption (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), whereas depressive symptoms were not (<i>p</i> = 0.1). <h3>Interpretation</h3> Co-consumers were more likely to report depressive symptoms and high-risk alcohol consumption; however, only depression, and not cannabis use, was associated with greater motivation to quit smoking and greater perceived dependence on cigarettes. A deeper understanding of how cannabis, alcohol use and depression interact among people who smoke cigarettes is needed, as well as how these factors affect cessation activity over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207