1620-P: Trends in Cannabis Use among Patients with Diabetes—The National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005-2017

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1620-P
Author(s):  
OMAYMA ALSHAARAWY
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Stuart Reece ◽  
Gary Kenneth Hulse

Abstract Background: Whilst many studies have linked increased drug and cannabis exposure to adverse mental health (MH) outcomes their effects on whole populations and geotemporospatial relationships are not well understood. Methods Ecological cohort study of National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) geographically-linked substate-shapefiles 2010–2012 and 2014–2016 supplemented by five-year US American Community Survey. Drugs: cigarettes, alcohol abuse, last-month cannabis use and last-year cocaine use. MH: any mental illness, major depressive illness, serious mental illness and suicidal thinking. Data analysis: two-stage, geotemporospatial, robust generalized linear regression and causal inference methods in R. Results 410,138 NSDUH respondents. Average response rate 76.7%. When drug and sociodemographic variables were combined in geospatial models significant terms including tobacco, alcohol, cannabis exposure and various ethnicities remained in final models for all four major mental health outcomes. Interactive terms including cannabis were related to any mental illness (β-estimate = 1.97 (95%C.I. 1.56–2.37), P <  2.2 × 10− 16), major depressive episode (β-estimate = 2.03 (1.54–2.52), P = 3.6 × 10− 16), serious mental illness (SMI, β-estimate = 2.04 (1.48–2.60), P = 1.0 × 10− 12), suicidal ideation (β-estimate = 1.99 (1.52–2.47), P <  2.2 × 10− 16) and in each case cannabis alone was significantly associated (from β-estimate = − 3.43 (− 4.46 − −2.42), P = 3.4 × 10− 11) with adverse MH outcomes on complex interactive regression surfaces. Geospatial modelling showed a monotonic upward trajectory of SMI which doubled (3.62 to 7.06%) as cannabis use increased. Extrapolated to whole populations cannabis decriminalization (4.26%, (4.18, 4.34%)), Prevalence Ratio (PR) = 1.035(1.034–1.036), attributable fraction in the exposed (AFE) = 3.28%(3.18–3.37%), P < 10− 300) and legalization (4.75% (4.65, 4.84%), PR = 1.155 (1.153–1.158), AFE = 12.91% (12.72–13.10%), P < 10− 300) were associated with increased SMI vs. illegal status (4.26, (4.18–4.33%)). Conclusions Data show all four indices of mental ill-health track cannabis exposure across space and time and are robust to multivariable adjustment for ethnicity, socioeconomics and other drug use. MH deteriorated with cannabis legalization. Cannabis use-MH data are consistent with causal relationships in the forward direction and include dose-response and temporal-sequential relationships. Together with similar international reports and numerous mechanistic studies preventative action to reduce cannabis use is indicated.


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Schmid

Cannabis use does not show homogeneous patterns in a country. In particular, urbanization appears to influence prevalence rates, with higher rates in urban areas. A hierarchical linear model (HLM) was employed to analyze these structural influences on individuals in Switzerland. Data for this analysis were taken from the Switzerland survey of Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study, the most recent survey to assess drug use in a nationally representative sample of 3473 15-year-olds. A total of 1487 male and 1620 female students indicated their cannabis use and their attributions of drug use to friends. As second level variables we included address density in the 26 Swiss Cantons as an indicator of urbanization and officially recorded offences of cannabis use in the Cantons as an indicator of repressive policy. Attribution of drug use to friends is highly correlated with cannabis use. The correlation is even more pronounced in urban Cantons. However, no association between recorded offences and cannabis use was found. The results suggest that structural variables influence individuals. Living in an urban area effects the attribution of drug use to friends. On the other hand repressive policy does not affect individual use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document