Search

Objective: Many young adults report frequent cannabis use and are at risk for cannabis harms. Knowledge of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations of cannabis products may promote harm reduction, but few studies have characterized cannabinoid concentration knowledge in this population. This study used day-level data to examine predictors of cannabinoid concentration knowledge and associations of cannabinoid concentration knowledge with substance-related consequences among young adults. Method: Participants (n = 131; mean age = 22.11 years; 64.12% female) from a larger study of cannabis and alcohol co-use completed daily surveys over 21 days assessing knowledge of the cannabinoid concentrations of cannabis used, forms of cannabis used, motives for cannabis use (medicinal, nonmedicinal, both), and substance-related consequences. Results: On average, participants reported at least some knowledge of the THC and CBD concentrations of their cannabis on 48% and 32% of their cannabis use days, respectively. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that participants with a greater propensity to use nonflower (relative to flower) cannabis products and to report medicinal (relative to exclusively nonmedicinal) motives for cannabis use reported greater cannabinoid concentration knowledge overall across days, controlling for sociodemographic factors and level of cannabis involvement. Participants with greater overall cannabinoid concentration knowledge reported positive substance-related consequences more often. In addition, participants were more likely to report negative substance-related consequences on days during which cannabinoid concentrations were known versus unknown. Conclusions: Findings suggest that cannabinoid concentration knowledge may be higher among young adults who report primarily nonflower and medicinally motivated cannabis use, although cannabinoid concentration knowledge, alone, may not protect against negative substance-related consequences at the day level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use is common, but observational studies examining negative consequences of simultaneous use have rarely considered dose‐related interactions between alcohol and cannabis. This study examined interactions between quantities of cannabis and alcohol consumed in predicting negative consequences on simultaneous use days. Methods: Young adults (N = 151; 64% female; 62% White) reporting recent simultaneous use and at least weekly alcohol and cannabis use completed 21 daily, smartphone‐based surveys assessing previous day quantities of cannabis and alcohol used, types of cannabis used (flower, concentrates, edibles), and negative substance‐related consequences. Multilevel models examined: (1) whether negative consequences differed within‐person across simultaneous use days and single‐substance use days; and (2) whether quantities of alcohol and cannabis consumed on simultaneous use days interacted, within‐person, to predict negative consequences. We focused on quantities of cannabis flower (grams) in primary analyses and explored quantities of other forms of cannabis (concentrates, edibles) in supplementary analyses. Results: Participants reported fewer negative consequences on alcohol‐only (243 observations) and cannabis‐only (713 observations) days than they did on simultaneous use days (429 observations). On simultaneous use days involving cannabis flower use (313 observations across 81 participants), the within‐person association between number of standard drinks and negative consequences was weaker on days during which larger (vs. smaller) amounts of cannabis flower were consumed. Inspection of simple slopes revealed that decreased alcohol use was associated with less of a decline in negative consequences when combined with relatively greater amounts of cannabis flower. Conclusions: Although simultaneous use was associated with more negative consequences than alcohol‐only and cannabis‐only use, negative consequences on simultaneous use days varied as a function of the interaction between alcohol and cannabis quantities. As findings suggest that using larger amounts of cannabis may attenuate declines in negative consequences associated with lighter drinking, interventions for higher‐risk simultaneous use patterns may benefit from a focus on quantities of both alcohol and cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A robust literature has found that loot box purchasing is associated with gambling and problem gambling. However, it remains unclear whether this association is merely an artifact of known psychological risk factors for gambling. The present study thus examined associations of loot box purchasing with gambling and problem gambling while controlling for potential psychological confounders. Current gamers, recruited from five Canadian universities (N = 1189) and Academic Prolific and Reddit (N = 499), reported on loot box engagement, gambling engagement, and psychological characteristics. In each sample, binomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between past-year loot box purchasing and likelihood of past-year gambling. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine the associations of each of past-year loot box purchasing and risky loot box engagement with problem gambling severity. In both samples, having purchased loot boxes in the past year was significantly associated with increased likelihood of having gambled in the past year and greater problem gambling severity. In the student sample, greater risky loot box engagement was significantly associated with increased problem gambling severity. Consistent with previous research, there exist associations between loot box purchasing and gambling. Results suggest that these associations are robust to known psychological risk factors for gambling, reducing plausibility of the notion that the association between loot box purchasing and gambling exists only due to shared psychological vulnerabilities. Loot box purchasing represents an important marker of risk for gambling and problem gambling among people who play video games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Gaming disorder (GD) is an increasingly common behavioural addiction, with estimated global prevalence rates of 3%. A variety of pharmacological treatments have been used to treat GD, yet no review to date has synthesized clinical trials evaluating their efficacy. This systematic review therefore synthesized the literature reporting on clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for GD. Method: We reviewed articles from MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO that were published as of March of 2022. A total of 828 articles were retrieved for review and 12 articles were included, reporting on a total of 724 participants. Results: Most participants were male (98.6%), and all were currently living in South Korea. The most common drugs used to treat GD were bupropion, methylphenidate, and a range of selective-serotonin reuptake-inhibitors. The Young Internet Addiction Scale was the most frequently instrument to measure gaming-related outcomes. All studies reported reduced symptoms of GD from pre-to post-treatment. Across all clinical trials, GD symptom reductions following the administration of pharmacological treatments ranged from 15.4% to 51.4%. Conclusion: Preliminary results suggest that a wide array of pharmacological interventions may be efficacious in the treatment of GD. Future studies using double-blind randomized controlled trial designs, recruiting larger and more representative samples, and controlling for psychiatric comorbidities are needed to better inform understanding of pharmacological treatments for GD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have revealed that individuals who engage in simultaneous use of alcohol and cannabis report elevated substance-related consequences relative to those who use only alcohol or cannabis; however, evidence from emerging studies examining within-person differences across simultaneous use and single substance use occasions is less consistent. This systematic review aimed to synthesize findings from existing day- and event-level studies of within-person differences in the proximal antecedents and acute outcomes associated with simultaneous use versus single substance use episodes. Our search strategy revealed 30 eligible articles. Two categories of antecedents (i.e., internal [e.g., motives] and external [e.g., social context]) and three categories of outcomes (i.e., consumption behavior, general positive and negative consequences, and specific consequences) were identified. The current literature consistently suggests that greater day- or event-level social and enhancement motives, as well as being in a social context, predict greater likelihood of engaging in simultaneous use compared with alcohol- or cannabis-only use. However, there was heterogeneity in findings regarding the role of other person-level antecedents. Further, while most evidence pointed to heavier alcohol consumption on simultaneous use occasions versus alcohol-only occasions, findings for elevations in acute negative and positive substance-related consequences on simultaneous use versus single substance use occasions were mixed. Additionally, four studies found that increased consequences on simultaneous use occasions depended on the level of alcohol consumed. This review identifies several antecedents for simultaneous use events but suggests that simultaneous use occasions are not always associated with more acute harms than single substance use occasions. Given the extent to which the current literature is mixed, this review emphasizes the importance of methodological improvements and future research examining the mechanisms linking simultaneous use with substance-related consequences to help reconcile findings across within-person and between-person studies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alcohol, Clinical and Experimental Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Research Society on Alcohol.)

Behavioral economic demand for cannabis and alcohol is robustly associated with cannabis use and alcohol use, respectively. However, few studies have examined the contributions of cannabis and alcohol demand to simultaneous cannabis and alcohol use, which is common among young adults. We examined prospective associations of cannabis demand and alcohol demand with propensity for simultaneous use (broadly defined as using both cannabis and alcohol in the same day) and with cannabis and alcohol consumption during simultaneous use days among young adults. Young adults reporting simultaneous use ( N = 107) completed a Marijuana Purchase Task assessing cannabis demand and an Alcohol Purchase Task assessing alcohol demand. They then completed daily smartphone surveys over 21 days assessing cannabis and alcohol use. Multilevel models revealed that higher cannabis demand (i.e., higher O max , P max , and intensity; lower elasticity) was uniquely associated with greater propensity for simultaneous use relative to nonuse. In addition, higher alcohol demand (lower elasticity) was uniquely associated with greater propensity for simultaneous use relative to cannabis-only use, and higher cannabis demand (higher break point and intensity, lower elasticity) was uniquely associated with greater propensity for simultaneous use relative to alcohol-only use. Furthermore, in models limited to simultaneous use days, greater cannabis demand (higher O max , lower elasticity) and lower alcohol demand (higher elasticity) were uniquely associated with greater overall cannabis flower consumption, and higher alcohol demand (higher O max , lower elasticity) was uniquely associated with greater overall alcohol consumption. Results suggest that individual differences in cannabis and alcohol demand may contribute to simultaneous cannabis and alcohol use behaviors in a substance-specific pattern. Furthermore, cannabis demand may more strongly drive the tendency to engage in simultaneous use (vs. nonuse) relative to alcohol demand. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Behavioral economic demand for cannabis is robustly associated with cannabis consumption and cannabis use disorder (CUD). However, few studies have examined the processes underlying individual differences in the relative valuation of cannabis (i.e., demand). This study examined associations between executive functions and cannabis demand among young adults who use cannabis. We also examined indirect associations of executive functions with cannabis consumption and CUD symptoms through cannabis demand. Young adults ( N = 113; 58.4% female; mean age 22 years) completed a Marijuana Purchase Task. Participants also completed cognitive tasks assessing executive functions (set shifting, inhibitory control, working memory) and semistructured interviews assessing past 90-day cannabis consumption (number of grams used) and number of CUD symptoms. Poorer inhibitory control was significantly associated with greater O max (peak expenditure on cannabis) and greater intensity (cannabis consumption at zero cost). Poorer working memory was significantly associated with lower elasticity (sensitivity of consumption to escalating cost). Lower inhibitory control was indirectly associated with greater cannabis consumption and CUD symptoms through greater O max and intensity, and poorer working memory was indirectly associated with greater cannabis consumption and CUD symptoms through reduced elasticity. This study provides novel evidence that executive functions are associated with individual differences in cannabis demand. Moreover, these results suggest that cannabis demand could be a mechanism linking poorer executive functioning with heavier cannabis use and CUD, which should be confirmed in future longitudinal studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-regulation strategies, such as limit setting, can be effective in reducing harms associated with gambling. However, limited research has examined their applicability to in-play sports betting. The current study therefore examined the utility of self-regulation strategies in reducing in-play betting intensity and associated harms. Adults engaging in-play betting (N = 77; M age  = 41.23 years, 71.43 % men) completed 14 days of ecological momentary assessment surveys in which they reported their in-play betting behaviours (number of bets placed, money spent), use of self-regulation strategies for in-play betting (setting monetary limits, setting time limits, stopping betting when no longer fun, taking frequent breaks), and in-play-betting-related harms. Multilevel models revealed that participants with a greater propensity to set monetary limits were overall less likely to experience financial, interpersonal, and health harms. In addition, participants were less likely to experience emotional/psychological harms following in-play betting occasions during which they set monetary limits (versus when they did not). In contrast, participants with a greater propensity to set time limits tended to spend more money on in-play bets, experienced more harms on average, and were overall more likely to experience financial and work/study harms. Results provide preliminary support for the utility of monetary limit setting, but not time limit setting, in reducing in-play-betting-related harms. Findings support the applicability of select self-regulation strategies originally proposed for more traditional forms of gambling to in-play sports betting, and highlight a need for further research investigating whether other responsible gambling strategies may be effective in reducing in-play-betting-related harms., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Funding for this study was provided by a research grant independently managed from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) with funds supported by Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) to Hyoun S. Kim and Matthew T. Keough. GREO and OLG had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing the article; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)