3.8 Article

Examining cannabis protective behavioral strategy use using multiple methods

Journal

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TODAY
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 295-305

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/DAT-10-2018-0061

Keywords

Cannabis; Focus groups; Young adults; Marijuana; Multi-method research; Protective behavioural strategies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Cannabis use among young adults is increasing, despite being associated with several negative consequences. Protective behavioral strategies (PBSs) are a potential mechanism of behavior change for reducing substance use, yet PBS use for cannabis is not well understood. The purpose of this paper is to further define and measure the PBS construct for cannabis. Design/methodology/approach A community sample of cannabis users (n=54) participated in eight focus groups discussing the use of PBSs. Participants completed surveys regarding demographics, cannabis use habits and cannabis problems. The authors also administered an existing measure of cannabis PBS and asked them to generate new or unique protective strategies that they had used or had heard of others using. Findings Thematic analysis of qualitative focus group data provided information about cannabis users' reasons for regulating cannabis use (e.g. health or legal problems, interpersonal) as well as strategies to moderate cannabis use or attenuate their risk for experiencing adverse consequences (e.g. distraction, existential/spiritual strategies). Analyses of quantitative survey data revealed that use of PBSs was negatively correlated with cannabis outcomes. Perceived helpfulness of strategies was an important predictor of decreased cannabis use and adverse consequences. Originality/value This is the first study to examine cannabis-related PBS using both qualitative and quantitative methods, which provide insights into the definition of PBS and for future refinements of PBS measurement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available