MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406386079 · doi:10.1186/s12954-024-01149-w

Reducing medical cannabis use risk among Veterans: A descriptive study

2025· article· en· W4406386079 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura M. Harris-Lane, M Sheehy, Courtney Loveless, Joshua A. Rash, David P. Storey, Gregory K. Tippin, Vikas Parihar, Nick Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsHealth psychologyCannabisDescriptive researchMedicineSocial policyPublic healthPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthClinical psychologyNursingPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canadian Veterans experiencing chronic pain report concerns about accessing accurate information on the risks associated with medical cannabis (MC) use. The Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines (LRCUG) were developed to equip individuals who use cannabis recreationally with safer-use strategies. Many of the harm reduction recommendations for recreational cannabis use are relevant and important considerations for MC use. The primary objective of our study was to assess Canadian Veterans' awareness of and interest in the LRCUG, and engagement in potential higher-risk MC use behaviours. METHODS: Canadian Armed Forces Veterans living with chronic pain (N = 582) were recruited online and through the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans. Participants completed measures on: cannabis use (never, past, current use), sources of cannabis knowledge, mental health, and awareness of and interest in receiving the LRCUG. Chi-Square and post-hoc analyses characterized the sample and assessed for demographic differences based on cannabis use status and awareness of the LRCUG. Engagement in higher-risk MC use behaviours were aligned to LRCUG recommendations, and detailed descriptively. RESULTS: Veterans who currently use cannabis were more likely to be unemployed (z = 3.62, p < .01), released as a Non-Commissioned Officer (z = -3.83, p < .01), and unable to work due a disability (z = -3.43, p < .01) than Veterans who do not currently use. Less than 30% of Veterans were aware of the LRCUG, with greater awareness among individuals who currently use cannabis (n = 356). Engagement in higher-risk MC use behaviours that contradicted LRCUG recommendations ranged from ~ 9% to ~ 85%. Approximately 9% of Veterans experienced co-morbid mental health concerns, yet their MC use was not for mental health purposes (LRCUG recommendation #7). Additionally, almost 85% of Veterans engaged in daily MC use (LRCUG recommendation #5). The majority of Veterans who currently use cannabis engaged in two or more higher-risk MC use behaviours (60.2%; LRCUG recommendation #12). Almost half of all Veterans received their cannabis information from a healthcare provider or the internet. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the importance of safer use guidelines tailored for MC use. Development of lower-risk MC use guidelines can support prescribing practitioners and Veterans with information needed for safer and better-informed MC use decisions, tailored to patients' needs and circumstances.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207