LoParco Cassidy R, Cui Yuxian, Rossheim Matthew E, Chakraborty Rishika, Speer Morgan, Chen-Sankey Julia, Cavazos-Rehg Patricia A, Berg Carla J
Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Department of Health Administration and Health Policy, College of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Subst Use Addctn J. 2025 Jul 25:29767342251355094. doi: 10.1177/29767342251355094.
Since the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act, derived intoxicating cannabis products (DICPs) emerged as largely unregulated products; meanwhile, traditional cannabis use has increased. To inform effective prevention, research is needed to assess differences in motives for using cannabis versus cannabis and DICPs, as well as use-related consequences.
We analyzed survey data (June-November 2023) from 4031 US young adults aged 18 to 34 (average age = 26.9; 63.9% white; 59.0% female; aiming for ~50% past-month cannabis use). The analytic sample included participants reporting past-month cannabis use (n = 1968). Two cross-sectional mediation models were conducted to examine: (1) cannabis use motives (social/cognitive enhancement and coping) in relation to use-related consequences (psychophysiological and sociobehavioral) via use category (cannabis-only vs cannabis-DICP co-use) and (2) consequences in relation to use category via use motives.
Overall, 54.4% reported cannabis-only use and 45.6% reported cannabis-DICP co-use. Greater enhancement and coping motives were associated with cannabis-DICP co-use (vs cannabis-only use). Regarding Model No. 1, lower cannabis coping motives and cannabis-DICP use (vs cannabis-only use) were associated with greater psychophysiological and sociobehavioral consequences, and the associations between coping and enhancement motives and psychophysiological and sociobehavioral consequences were indirectly mediated via cannabis-DICP co-use. For Model No. 2, lower psychophysiological and greater sociobehavioral consequences were associated with greater coping and enhancement motives, greater sociobehavioral consequences was associated with higher odds of cannabis-DICP co-use (vs cannabis-only use), and psychophysiological and sociobehavioral consequences were indirectly associated with cannabis-DICP co-use through enhancement and coping motives.
Considering the risks associated with cannabis and DICP use, future intervention and prevention efforts should focus on the observed associations to reduce risk.
自2018年《农业改进法案》以来，衍生的致醉大麻产品（DICPs）成为基本不受监管的产品；与此同时，传统大麻的使用有所增加。为了为有效的预防工作提供信息，需要进行研究以评估使用大麻与使用大麻和DICPs的动机差异以及与使用相关的后果。
我们分析了2023年6月至11月来自4031名18至34岁美国年轻人（平均年龄 = 26.9岁；63.9%为白人；59.0%为女性；目标是约50%在过去一个月内使用过大麻）的调查数据。分析样本包括报告在过去一个月内使用过大麻的参与者（n = 1968）。进行了两个横断面中介模型来检验：（1）使用大麻的动机（社交/认知增强和应对）与通过使用类别（仅使用大麻与同时使用大麻和DICPs）与使用相关后果（心理生理和社会行为）之间的关系，以及（2）通过使用动机与使用类别相关的后果。
总体而言，54.4%报告仅使用大麻，45.6%报告同时使用大麻和DICPs。更强的增强和应对动机与同时使用大麻和DICPs（与仅使用大麻相比）相关。关于模型1，较低的大麻应对动机和同时使用大麻和DICPs（与仅使用大麻相比）与更大的心理生理和社会行为后果相关，并且应对和增强动机与心理生理和社会行为后果之间的关联通过同时使用大麻和DICPs间接介导。对于模型2，较低的心理生理后果和更大的社会行为后果与更强的应对和增强动机相关，更大的社会行为后果与同时使用大麻和DICPs（与仅使用大麻相比）的更高几率相关，并且心理生理和社会行为后果通过增强和应对动机与同时使用大麻和DICPs间接相关。
考虑到与使用大麻和DICPs相关的风险，未来的干预和预防措施应侧重于观察到的关联以降低风险。
