4.6 Article

Cannabis abuse as a risk factor for depressive symptoms

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 158, Issue 12, Pages 2033-2037

Publisher

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PRESS, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2033

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA-05186] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-47447, MH-14592] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study sought to estimate the degree to which cannabis abuse is a risk factor for depressive symptoms rather than an effort to self-medicate depression. Method: Participants (N=1,920) in the 1980 Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study who were reassessed between 1994 and 1995 as part of a followup study provided the data. The analysis focused on two cohorts: those who reported no depressive symptoms at baseline (N=849) and those with no diagnosis of cannabis abuse at baseline (N=1,837). Symptoms of depression, cannabis abuse, and other psychiatric disorders were assessed with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Results: In participants with no baseline depressive symptoms, those with a diagnosis of cannabis abuse at baseline were four times more likely than those with no cannabis abuse diagnosis to have depressive symptoms at the follow-up assessment, after adjusting for age, gender, antisocial symptoms, and other baseline covariates. In particular, these participants were more likely to have experienced suicidal ideation and anhedonia during the follow-up period, Among the participants who had no diagnosis of cannabis abuse at baseline, depressive symptoms at baseline failed to significantly predict cannabis abuse at the follow-up assessment. Conclusions: Further research is needed to identify characteristics of individuals who abuse cannabis that account for their higher risk of depression to estimate the degree of impairment resulting from their depression.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available