Understanding youth and young adult cannabis use in Canada post-legalization: a scoping review on a public health issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada legalized recreational cannabis in 2018, and one of the primary objectives of the Cannabis Act was to protect youth by reducing their access to cannabis and providing public education. Canada has the highest prevalence of cannabis use worldwide, particularly among youth and young adults under the age of 25. Cannabis use is linked with many adverse effects for youth and young adults including psychosis, anxiety, depression, respiratory distress, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and impaired cognitive performance. Despite the high prevalence of cannabis use and the evolution of policies in Canada and globally, significant knowledge and research gaps remain regarding youth and young adult cannabis use. The aim of this scoping review is to map the extent, nature, and range of evidence available on youth and young adult cannabis use in Canada since its legalization, in order to strengthen policies, services, treatments, training, and public education strategies. METHODS: Using a scoping review framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, along with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a rigorous search in five academic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection. We included empirical studies that collected data in Canada after the legalization of recreational cannabis (October 2018) and focused on youth or young adults < 30. Two reviewers independently screened articles in two stages and extracted relevant information from articles meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 47 articles meeting our inclusion criteria, 92% used quantitative methods, 6% were qualitative, and 2% used a mixed-methods approach. Over two-thirds (68%) used secondary data. These studies were categorized into six focus areas: (1) prevalence, patterns, and trends, (2) cannabis-related injuries and emergency department (ED) visits, (3) rates and patterns during the pandemic, (4) perceptions of cannabis use, (5) prevention tools, and (6) cannabis-related offenses. Key findings from the studies reviewed include an increase in cannabis use among 18-24-year-olds post-legalization, with mixed results for youth under 18. ED visits for intentional and unintentional cannabis-related injuries have increased in young children and teens. Perception studies show a mix of concern and normalization of cannabis use. Though limited, prevention studies are promising in raising awareness. A decline in cannabis-related offenses was noted by one study. The review highlights several research gaps, including the need for more qualitative data, disaggregation of demographic data, intervention research, and comprehensive studies on the physical and mental health impacts of cannabis use among youth and young adults. CONCLUSION: Maintaining a public health approach is critical, with a focus on reducing the high prevalence of cannabis use among youth and young adults. This involves implementing prevention strategies to minimize harms, enhancing public education, minimizing commercialization, reducing youth access to cannabis, promoting guidelines for lower-risk cannabis use and harm reduction strategies, and increasing training for healthcare providers.
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 | 0.015 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".