Perceptions of cannabis among adults aged 60 years and older in Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since cannabis legalization in Canada, consumption by older adults has risen more rapidly than in other age groups. There is a need to better understand patterns of consumption, motivations, access, perceptions of risks and benefits, and how legalization has changed older adults' behaviours, especially across gender, and frequency of use. METHODS: We conducted 10 online focus groups with 72 participants aged 60 years and older, segmented by cannabis use frequency. Focus groups were held across five regions in Canada. Data were collected using open-ended questions and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Analysis revealed five themes: common practices; general knowledge; perceived harms; perceived benefits; and changes in stigma and social acceptability following legalization. The participants used various consumption methods, primarily oral consumption of edibles (gummies, capsules and baked goods) and inhalation (vaping and smoking). Legalization may have decreased stigma associated with cannabis use. Both frequent and infrequent consumers noted the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, particularly for pain management and mental health, but many expressed concerns about potential physical and cognitive adverse effects, possible interactions with medications and a lack of trustworthy sources of information or guidance from health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the complexities of cannabis consumption among older adults, who have specific challenges and risks, and the need for comprehensive public education and support from health care providers. Targeted research and policy development to address the specific needs of this underrepresented population are urgently needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".