The effect of non-medical cannabis retailer proximity on use of mental health services for psychotic disorders in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis is associated with the onset and persistence of psychotic disorders. Evidence suggests that accessibility of substances is associated with an increased risk of use-related harms. We sought to examine the effect of residing in proximity to non-medical cannabis retailers on the prevalence of health service use for psychosis. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using linked health administrative data, and used geospatial analyses to determine whether people in Ontario, Canada (aged 14-60 years) resided within walking (1.6 km) or driving (5.0 km) distance of non-medical cannabis retailers (open as of February-2020). We identified outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for psychotic disorders between 01-April-2019 and 17-March-2020. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression models and gamma generalized linear models to estimate the association between cannabis retailer proximity and indicators of health service use. RESULTS: Non-medical cannabis retailers were differentially located in areas with high levels of marginalization and pre-existing health service use for psychosis. People residing within walking or driving distance of a cannabis retailer had a higher rate of psychosis-related outpatient visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations, compared to people living outside these areas. This effect was stronger among those with no prior service use for psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Proximity to a non-medical cannabis retailer was associated with higher health service use for psychosis, even after adjustment for prior health service use. These findings suggest that opening of non-medical cannabis retailers could worsen the burden of psychosis on mental health services in areas with high-risk populations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".