Associations between number of standard doses of tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabis use motives and cannabis-related negative consequences
Date
2022
Authors
Tyskiewicz, Alexander J., author
Conner, Bradley, advisor
Prince, Mark, committee member
Riggs, Nathaniel, committee member
Tompkins, Sara, committee member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
Objective: Recently, the National Institutes of Health published a notice of information regarding the establishment of a standard unit of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to be used in research. To address this notice, the current study examined if associations between cannabis use and cannabis related consequences and cannabis use motives would differ when using standard dose as a measure of cannabis use compared to cannabis use frequency. I hypothesized that there would be a positive significant relation between each cannabis use motive and cannabis-related consequences. I hypothesized significant positive relations between motives and number of standard doses. I hypothesized that the positive relation between motives and cannabis-related consequences would be partially mediated by cannabis use as measured by standard dose but not cannabis use frequency. I also hypothesized that none of the cannabis use motives would significantly predict cannabis use frequency, cannabis use frequency would not predict cannabis-related negative consequences, and cannabis use frequency would not mediate the relation between cannabis use motives and cannabis-related negative consequences. Method: I conducted five path analyses to test study hypotheses in a sample of individuals (n=84) who reported regular to heavy cannabis use. I ran non-inferiority tests to test hypotheses of non-significance. Results: Coping motives significantly positively predicted cannabis-related consequences (b=0.376, SE=0.136, p=0.006), such that a one-unit increase in coping motives was expected to increase cannabis-related consequences by a factor of 1.45 (45%). Number of standard doses significantly positively predicted cannabis-related consequences (b=0.24, SE=0.122, p=0.046) such that a one-unit increase in number of standard doses was expected to increase cannabis-related negative consequences by a factor of 1.27. (27%). In the social motives model, social motives significantly positively predicted cannabis-related negative consequences (b=.358, SE=.133, p=.007) such that a one-unit increase in social motives was expected to increase cannabis related consequences by a factor of 1.43 (43%). Also, social motives significantly positively predicted number of standard doses (b=0.3, SE=0.097, p=0.002) such that a one-unit increase in social motives was expected to increase the number of standard doses by a factor of 1.349 (35%). Enhancement motives significantly positively predicted cannabis-related consequences (b=0.406, SE=0.161, p=0.012) such that a one-unit increase in enhancement motives was expected to increase cannabis related consequences by a factor of 1.50 (50%). Further, rate ratios (RR) revealed that one unit increases in number of standard doses ingested predicted larger increases in cannabis-related negative consequences than did one unit increases in cannabis use frequency across all models with significant results. All indirect effects were not significant. Conclusion: Previous research has reported mixed findings on the relations between cannabis use frequency and motives and cannabis use and consequences. Results suggest that number of standard doses and cannabis use frequency differ in the ways in which they predict both cannabis use motives and cannabis-related negative consequences. Further, results suggest that neither number of standard doses nor cannabis use frequency mediate relations between cannabis use motives and cannabis-related consequences.