Search

Tobacco use among cancer patients is associated with an increased mortality and poorer outcomes, yet two-thirds of patients continue using following diagnosis, with disproportionately higher use among racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status patients. Tobacco treatment services that are effectively tailored and adapted to population characteristics and multilevel context specific to settings serving diverse patients are needed to improve tobacco cessation among cancer patients. We examined tobacco use screening and implementation needs for tobacco treatment services to inform equitable and accessible delivery within a large comprehensive cancer center in the greater Los Angeles region. We conducted a multi-modal, mixed methods assessment using electronic medical records (EMR), and clinic stakeholder surveys and interviews (guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). Approximately 45% of patients (n = 11,827 of 26,030 total) had missing tobacco use history in their EMR. Several demographic characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, insurance) were associated with greater missing data prevalence. In surveys (n = 32), clinic stakeholders endorsed tobacco screening and cessation services, but indicated necessary improvements for screening/referral procedures. During interviews (n = 13), providers/staff reported tobacco screening was important, but level of priority differed as well as how often and who should screen. Several barriers were noted, including patients' language/cultural barriers, limited time during visits, lack of smoking cessation training, and insurance coverage. While stakeholders indicated high interest in tobacco use assessment and cessation services, EMR and interview data revealed opportunities to improve tobacco use screening across patient groups. Implementing sustainable system-level tobacco cessation programs at institutions requires leadership support, staff training, on routine screening, and intervention and referral strategies that meet patients' linguistic/cultural needs., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The field of psychology has a history of harming racialized communities through the endorsement of scientific racism and the systematic silencing and erasure of dissenting voices. The field has a moral imperative to work collectively to create a future where the experiences, perspectives, and contributions of Black people are included and celebrated. Here, we contribute to centering Black voices by highlighting the scholarship of Professor James M. Jones, whose work on racial issues and diversity has had a profound impact. Our aim was twofold: (a) critically review foundational pieces of Jones' work and identify core themes and (b) discuss the impact of Jones' work on science and society, including areas for future research. Using various keyword strategies and in consultation with Professor Jones, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory searches using APA PsycInfo, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. We curated 21 pieces for review and identified six core themes: (a) racism as a universal context, (b) culture and context matter in situating historical and temporal narratives, (c) methodological limitations of psychological examinations of race, (d) doing diversity, (e) accepting divergent social realities, and (f) coping with oppression. Jones' systems-level analysis of racism provides a strong theoretical and analytical framework for the study of racial issues. Jones' impact and legacy extend far beyond the academe: as director of the Minority Fellowship Program and executive director of public interest at American Psychological Association, he has influenced generations of psychologists and paved a pathway for psychological science methods in social policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Importance: While a diverse array of cannabis products that may appeal to youth is currently available, it is unknown whether the risk of persistent cannabis use and progression to higher frequency of use after experimentation differs among cannabis products., Objective: To estimate the comparative relative risk of experimental use of 5 cannabis products on use status and frequency of use among adolescents during 12 months of follow-up., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, data were collected from 3065 adolescents at 10 high schools in southern California, with baseline data collected in spring 2016, when students were in 11th grade, and 6-month and 12-month follow-up surveys collected in fall 2016 and spring 2017, when students were in 12th grade. Analyses, conducted from April to June 2019, were restricted to 2685 participants who were light or nonusers of any cannabis product (ie, ≤2 days in the past 30 days) at baseline., Exposures: Number of days of use of each cannabis product (ie, combustible, blunts, vaporized, edible, or concentrated) in the past 30 days at baseline (ie, 1-2 vs 0 days)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Past 6-month use (ie, yes vs no) and number of days of use in the past 30 days at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups for each product., Results: Of 2685 individuals in the analytic sample, 1477 (55.0%) were young women, the mean (SD) age was 17.1 (0.4) years, and a plurality (1231 [46.6%]) were Hispanic individuals. Among them, 158 (5.9%) reported combustible cannabis use on 1 to 2 days of the past 30 days at baseline, 90 (3.4%) reported blunt use, 78 (2.9%) reported edible cannabis use, 17 (0.6%) reported vaping cannabis, and 15 (0.6%) reported using cannabis concentrates. In regression models adjusting for demographic characteristics and poly-cannabis product use, statistically stronger associations of baseline use with subsequent past 6-month use at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups were observed for combustible cannabis use (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% CI, 3.66-9.85) and cannabis concentrate use (odds ratio, 5.87; 95% CI, 1.18-23.80) compared with use of blunts (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.45-5.29) or edible cannabis (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.86-5.95) (P for comparison < .05); vaporized cannabis use (OR, 5.34; 95% CI, 1.51-11.20) was not significantly different from the other products. In similarly adjusted models, we found the association of cannabis use at baseline with mean days of use at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups was significantly stronger for cannabis concentrate than for other cannabis products; participants who had used cannabis concentrate on 1 to 2 of the past 30 days at baseline (vs 0 days) used cannabis concentrate a mean of 9.42 (95% CI, 2.02-35.50) more days in the past 30 days at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups (P for comparison < .05)., Conclusions and Relevance: Cannabis control efforts should consider targeting specific cannabis products, including combustible cannabis and cannabis concentrate, for maximum public health consequences.

Background: Data from controlled laboratory experiments in adults indicate that the subjective effects of cannabis vary by administration method (e.g., combustible, vaporized). Whether the subjective effects of cannabis experienced in the natural ecology and among adolescents differ by cannabis administration method is unknown. In this observational study, adolescents' retrospective reports of subjective effects after combustible, edible, and vaporized cannabis use were examined., Methods: Students from ten public schools in Los Angeles, CA, USA (M[SD] age = 16.1 [.43] years) who reported past 6-month use of combustible, edible, or vaporized cannabis (N = 584) were surveyed on subjective effects experienced after use (yes/no). They were provided with a 12 item self-report checklist of six positive (e.g., relaxed, energetic) and six negative (e.g., drowsy, lazy) subjective effects. For each method of administration, affirmative responses were summed in positive (range: 0-6) and negative (range: 0-6) effect composite scores., Results: Generalized estimating equations adjusted for demographics and recent cannabis use revealed a graded pattern of differences in positive subjective effects across products, with highest scores for combustible (M[SD] = 3.98[1.76]), followed by edible (M[SD] = 3.58 [2.04]) and vaporized (M[SD] = 3.11 [2.21]) cannabis (all pairwise cross-product contrasts p < .01). Mean negative effect score was highest for edible (M[SD] = 2.27 [1.95]), followed by combustible (M[SD] = 1.94 [1.66]), and vaporized (M[SD] = 1.34 [1.73]) cannabis, respectively (all pairwise contrasts p < .02)., Conclusion: Adolescents' reports of subjective effects varied across cannabis administration methods. Combustible cannabis' more desirable subjective effects profile might be indicative of higher abuse liability., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: Daily cannabis use can portend problematic use or dependence. We aimed to identify early risk factors for daily cannabis use in young adults., Methods: Data were available in a longitudinal investigation of 1294 grade 7 students age 12 to 13 years at inception recruited in 10 secondary schools in Montreal, Canada, in 1999. Data on daily cannabis use were collected in mailed self-report questionnaires from 878 participants (67.9% of 1294) at age 20. The associations between each of 23 potential risk factors measured in grade 7 and daily cannabis use at age 20 were modeled using logistic regression., Results: At age 20, 44% of participants reported past-year cannabis use; 10% reported daily use. Older age; male sex; higher levels of family stress and other stress; use of alcohol, cigarettes, and other tobacco products; parent(s), sibling(s), and friend(s) smoke cigarettes; higher body mass index; higher impulsivity and novelty seeking; and lower self-esteem increased the odds of daily cannabis use., Conclusions: Children at risk of daily cannabis use as young adults can be identified early. They may benefit from early intervention to prevent problematic cannabis use.