Suppr超能文献

合成大麻素:在一个大型全球样本中与天然大麻相比的使用模式和效果特征比较。

Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample.

机构信息

South London and Maudsley NHS Trust/Kings College London, United Kingdom; Global Drug Survey, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Jul 1;131(1-2):106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.011. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen the appearance of myriad novel psychoactive substances with diverse effect profiles. Synthetic cannabinoids are among the most recently identified but least researched of these substances.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was conducted in 2011 using a quantitative structured research tool. Missing data (median 2%) were treated by available-case analysis.

RESULTS

Of 14,966 participants, 2513 (17%) reported use of synthetic cannabis. Of these, 980 (41% of 2417) reported its use in the last 12 months. Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99% of 975) reported ever use of natural cannabis. Synthetic cannabis reportedly had both a shorter duration of action (z=17.82, p<.001) and quicker time to peak onset of effect (z=-9.44, p<.001) than natural cannabis. Natural cannabis was preferred to synthetic cannabis by 93% of users, with natural cannabis rated as having greater pleasurable effects when high (t(930)=-37.1, p<.001, d=-1.22) and being more able to function after use (t(884)=-13.3, p<.001, d=-0.45). Synthetic cannabis was associated with more negative effects (t(859)=18.7, p<.001, d=0.64), hangover effects (t(854)=6.45, p<.001, d=0.22) and greater paranoia (t(889)=7.91, p<.001, d=0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Users report a strong preference for natural over synthetic cannabis. The latter has a less desirable effect profile. Further research is required to determine longer term consequences of use and comparative dependence potential.

摘要

背景

过去十年出现了大量具有不同作用模式的新型精神活性物质。合成大麻素是最近发现的、但研究最少的物质之一。

方法

2011 年采用定量结构化研究工具进行了匿名在线调查。通过可用案例分析处理缺失数据(中位数 2%)。

结果

在 14966 名参与者中,2513 名(17%)报告使用合成大麻。其中,980 名(2417 名中的 41%)报告在过去 12 个月中使用过。几乎所有最近使用合成大麻的人(975 名中的 99%)都报告曾经使用过天然大麻。与天然大麻相比,合成大麻的作用持续时间更短(z=17.82,p<.001),作用峰值起效时间更快(z=-9.44,p<.001)。93%的使用者更喜欢天然大麻,与合成大麻相比,天然大麻在使用时感觉更愉快(t(930)=-37.1,p<.001,d=-1.22),使用后更能正常活动(t(884)=-13.3,p<.001,d=-0.45)。合成大麻与更多的不良影响有关(t(859)=18.7,p<.001,d=0.64),宿醉效应(t(854)=6.45,p<.001,d=0.22)和更高的偏执(t(889)=7.91,p<.001,d=0.27)。

结论

使用者报告说,他们强烈倾向于使用天然大麻而不是合成大麻。后者的作用模式不太理想。需要进一步研究以确定使用的长期后果和比较依赖性潜力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验