Historique
Article de Périodique
Ready, willing, and able: the role of cannabis use opportunities in understanding adolescent cannabis use (2017)
Auteur(s) :
BURDZOVIC ANDREAS, J. ;
BRETTEVILLE-JENSEN, A. L.
Année
2017
Page(s) :
1973-1982
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
64
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
EPI (Epidémiologie / Epidemiology)
Thésaurus mots-clés
ESPAD
;
ADOLESCENT
;
CANNABIS
;
EVOLUTION
;
PREVALENCE
Thésaurus géographique
NORVEGE
Note générale :
- Commentary: Cannabis use opportunities - an under-researched factor in substance use epidemiology. Fink D.S., p. 1983-1984.
- Erratum in Addiction 2018;113(1):189.
- Consideration of use opportunities, novel products, and user modes in cannabis monitoring, research, and policy: a response to the commentary. Burdzovic Andreas J., Bretteville-Jensen A.L., Addiction, 2018;113(3), p. 575-576.
- Erratum in Addiction 2018;113(1):189.
- Consideration of use opportunities, novel products, and user modes in cannabis monitoring, research, and policy: a response to the commentary. Burdzovic Andreas J., Bretteville-Jensen A.L., Addiction, 2018;113(3), p. 575-576.
Résumé :
Aims: To examine adolescent cannabis use - both at national and individual levels - by deconstructing it into its necessary conditions of realistic use opportunities and willingness to use the drug given such opportunities.
Design: Nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional survey.
Setting: Norway.
Participants: A total of 8818 16-year-olds who participated in the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) in 2007, 2011, and 2015.
Measurements: Adolescent reports concerning their life-time 'cannabis use' and 'possibilities to use cannabis' were used to assess: (a) overall cannabis use, (b) exposure to realistic cannabis use opportunities, and (c) cannabis use among those exposed to use opportunities. Logistic regression models were used to estimate national trends since 2007 in these indicators, and to identify individual-level factors associated with cannabis use versus non-use among youth exposed to concrete use opportunities.
Findings: Prevalence of life-time cannabis use remained stably low, averaging 6.4% across the three surveys. Life-time exposure to cannabis use opportunities decreased [odds ratio OR(ESPAD assessment) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-0.97, P = 0.006], yet cannabis use among adolescents with such opportunities increased significantly (OR(ESPAD assessment) = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.03-1.34, P = 0.02) since 2007. After controlling for a range of other risk factors, abstinence from alcohol intoxication and cigarette use, as well as the perceptions of even minimal cannabis use as risky remained the factors most robustly associated with lower likelihood of cannabis use among youth with realistic use opportunities.
Conclusions: Approaches accounting for realistic use opportunities proved critical in our understanding of underage cannabis use, both at the national and individual level, and may be informative for development of prevention strategies in the era of cannabis liberalization. In addition, delineation of realistic opportunities from behaviours conditioned upon such opportunities is generalizable to a range of public health issues.
Design: Nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional survey.
Setting: Norway.
Participants: A total of 8818 16-year-olds who participated in the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) in 2007, 2011, and 2015.
Measurements: Adolescent reports concerning their life-time 'cannabis use' and 'possibilities to use cannabis' were used to assess: (a) overall cannabis use, (b) exposure to realistic cannabis use opportunities, and (c) cannabis use among those exposed to use opportunities. Logistic regression models were used to estimate national trends since 2007 in these indicators, and to identify individual-level factors associated with cannabis use versus non-use among youth exposed to concrete use opportunities.
Findings: Prevalence of life-time cannabis use remained stably low, averaging 6.4% across the three surveys. Life-time exposure to cannabis use opportunities decreased [odds ratio OR(ESPAD assessment) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-0.97, P = 0.006], yet cannabis use among adolescents with such opportunities increased significantly (OR(ESPAD assessment) = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.03-1.34, P = 0.02) since 2007. After controlling for a range of other risk factors, abstinence from alcohol intoxication and cigarette use, as well as the perceptions of even minimal cannabis use as risky remained the factors most robustly associated with lower likelihood of cannabis use among youth with realistic use opportunities.
Conclusions: Approaches accounting for realistic use opportunities proved critical in our understanding of underage cannabis use, both at the national and individual level, and may be informative for development of prevention strategies in the era of cannabis liberalization. In addition, delineation of realistic opportunities from behaviours conditioned upon such opportunities is generalizable to a range of public health issues.
Affiliation :
Department of Substance Use, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Cote :
Abonnement