Changes in the Sex/Gender Gap in Cannabis Use in Ontario, Canada From 2001 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although cannabis use has been historically higher in men than women, some research suggests a narrowing of the sex/gender gap in recent decades. We characterised trends in cannabis use patterns by sex/gender and examined trends in the sex/gender ratios of cannabis use patterns in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Monitor Survey, a repeated, population-based, cross-sectional telephone survey of adults in Ontario, Canada (2001-2019). Participants provided self-reports of cannabis use during lifetime and cannabis use during the past 12 months. Male-to-female ratios of both outcomes in each year were calculated. Trends in these outcomes were analysed using join point regression. RESULTS: All outcomes increased among males and females between 2001 and 2019: cannabis use in lifetime (average annual percentage change [AAPC; 95% confidence interval]: 2.0 [0.6-3.3] and 2.9 [1.8-4.0], respectively) and cannabis use during past 12 months (3.5 [2.2-4.9] and 4.7 [2.8-6.6], respectively). The male-to-female ratio of cannabis use during lifetime decreased between 2001 and 2019 (AAPC [95% confidence interval]: -0.7, [-1.0 to -0.4]), unlike cannabis use during past 12 months (-0.5 [-1.8-0.7]). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a narrowing of the sex/gender gap in cannabis use. Continued monitoring of the sex/gender gap is important to inform health promotion efforts and guide cannabis policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".