Cannabis Use and Perceptions of Cannabis Safety, Effectiveness, and Stigma amongst older Canadians: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Since legalization in 2018, older Canadians' use of cannabis has increased steadily, yet little is known about their perceptions of cannabis. We aimed to determine cannabis usage, and characterize perceptions of safety, effectiveness and stigma in community dwelling older Canadians. Method: Canadians aged 50 years and older were invited to participate in an electronic survey of their experience with cannabis and perceptions of cannabis safety, effectiveness, and stigma. Data were categorized as participants reporting current use, non-use, prior use, and considering use. Perceptions were assessed with a 5-point Likert scale and open text box questions. Logistic regression models were used to assess how age, sex, cannabis usage, and education influenced perceptions. Results: One thousand six hundred fifteen participants completed the survey. Current cannabis use was reported by 44% of respondents, followed by non-use (33.2%), prior use (16.5%) and considering use (6.1%). Almost half (49.2%) perceived the risks of using cannabis to be low or very low. The greatest concerns regarding cannabis use were effects on cognition/mental health (40.8%), physical health (19.1%), and available product information (18.0%). Participants somewhat or strongly agreed that there is not enough information on cannabis safety (60.4%) and effectiveness (63.8%), and 34.7% perceived there to be a negative stigma amongst family and friends. Cannabis perceptions were influenced by age, sex, cannabis usage, and education. Conclusions: Generational and sex-based differences exist in cannabis usage and perceptions amongst older Canadians. These differences require consideration by health practitioners and public health workers to meet the educational needs of older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".