Results of a Marijuana Users Survey in Alaska

Transcription

1 Results of a Marijuana Users Survey in Alaska Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Section of Epidemiology Section of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention

2 Agenda Introduction: Marijuana use in Alaska & Survey population Methods: Sample design & Analysis Survey Results Conclusions Limitations Next Steps

3 Percent -/+ 95% CI Marijuana Use in Alaska Marijuana use in adults (18+), NSDUH Marijuana use in the past year Marijuana use in the past month Year of survey

4 Marijuana Use in Alaska Year Marijuana use in adults (18+), BRFSS Current Marijuana Use Lower 95% CI % 14.3% 17.2% % 13.9% 17.1% Upper 95% CI

5 More questions about marijuana use Modes of use (smoking, edibles, etc.) Reasons for use Medical conditions Drugged driving Knowledge of laws Use around children

6 Survey Purpose & Design Survey purpose: better understanding of Patterns of use Reasons for use Knowledge and beliefs among marijuana users in AK Survey intended to inform programs Not intended to provide exact statewide estimates

7 Sampling Method Call-back survey among respondents to the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey BRFSS is stratified random sample Geography, oversampled on rural regions 80% landline, 20% cell phone Weighted and raked accordingly

8 Sampling Method 2015 BRFSS 915 marijuana users 719 agreed to call-back 250 reached in survey Each of the 250 respondents: Had the same phone number of the original respondent Agreed to participate in survey Confirmed marijuana use in past 30 days Assessed sample differences, and analyzed data accordingly

9 Sensitivity & Survey Analysis Compared demographics of respondent vs. nonrespondent groups Region, education level, race, age, sex, employment status, poverty levels, smoking status Survey analysis: Raked on 14 margins, SAS ProcSurvey procedures Compared weighted mean days marijuana use reported by BRFSS sample and final sample

10 Respondent Demographics Weighted Median Interquartile Range Age, years 42.6 ( ) Crude N Weighted % (95% CIs) Sex Male ( ) Female ( ) Education < High School ( ) Some High School ( ) High School Graduate ( ) Some College ( ) Bachelors Degree ( ) Post Grad/Graduate Degree ( )

11 Respondent Demographics Weighted Median Interquartile Range Age, years 42.6 ( ) Crude N Weighted % (95% CIs) Sex Male ( ) Female ( ) Education < High School ( ) Some High School ( ) High School Graduate ( ) Some College ( ) Bachelors Degree ( ) Post Grad/Graduate Degree ( )

12 Respondent Demographics Weighted Median Interquartile Range Age, years 42.6 ( ) Crude N Weighted % (95% CIs) Sex Male ( ) Female ( ) Education < High School ( ) Some High School ( ) High School Graduate ( ) Some College ( ) Bachelors Degree ( ) Post Grad/Graduate Degree ( )

13 Respondent Demographics Weighted Median Interquartile Range Age, years 42.6 ( ) Crude N Weighted % (95% CIs) Sex Male ( ) Female ( ) Education < High School ( ) Some High School ( ) High School Graduate ( ) Some College ( ) Bachelors Degree ( ) Post Grad/Graduate Degree ( )

14 Sensitivity Analysis Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719

15 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719

16 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Final Sample N=250

17 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Age (P=0.017) Employment (p=0.017) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Final Sample N=250

18 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Age (P=0.017) Employment (p=0.017) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Final Sample N=250

19 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Education (P=0.036) Age (P=0.006) Employment (P=0.029) Age (P=0.017) Employment (p=0.017) Final Sample N=250

20 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Age (P=0.017) Employment (p=0.017) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Final Sample N=250 Education (P=0.036) Age (P=0.006) Employment (P=0.029) Differences in demographics were accounted for by raking up to original BRFSS sample

21 Sensitivity Analysis Sex (P=0.021) Age (P=0.017) Employment (p=0.017) Original BRFSS N=915 Agreed to Call-Back N=719 Final Sample N=250 Education (P=0.036) Age (P=0.006) Employment (P=0.029) Differences in demographics were accounted for by raking up to original BRFSS sample No significant difference between reported mean days marijuana use (P=0.50)

22 Selected Survey Results Weighted Median Interquartile Range Days used marijuana (Past 30 days) Crude N Weighted Prevalence Weighted 95% CIs Mode of use Smoking % 95.9% % Edibles % 73.1% % Vaping/Dabbing % 12.1% % Main reasons for use Relax/Relieve tension % 85.4% % Feel good/get high % 63.3% % Help sleep % 46.8% % Treat a medical condition % 42.2% % Used in place of pain medication % 16.7% %

23 Selected Survey Results Crude N Weighted Prevalence Weighted 95% CIs Driven while high % 13.4% % Concurrent use of other substances Alcohol % 56.4% % Tobacco % 51.8% % Ever used in presence of young children % 4.9% % Parent/Guardian of child under 21 years % 27.0% % Store marijuana in secure location % 84.9% %

24 Survey Conclusions Among marijuana users, daily or almost daily use is common (median: 19 days/month) Smoking most common (98%) Edibles (20%) & vaping/dabbing (22%) common Top reasons for use: Relaxation/tension relief Feel good/get high Help sleep Medical condition Majority of users understand laws

25 Intervention targets Drugged driving (25%) Probably higher due to social desirability bias Use in presence of young children (9%) Probably higher Multi-substance use With alcohol (69%) and tobacco (65%)

26 Limitations Some respondents from sample might not match BRFSS respondent, but overall demographics of sample are similar Small sample size Social desirability bias Drugged driving, use around children, safe storage Not as rigorous as adding questions to BRFSS, but more economical, timely, and useful for programs

27 Office of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention (OSMAP) Working to establish a marijuana education tax fund Modeled after tobacco tax fund Point-of-sale education materials Fact books Bag inserts Posters & window clings Responsible consumer campaign

28 Office of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention (OSMAP) Establishing program for marijuana misuse and addiction prevention Surveillance and monitoring to answer critical questions on whether marijuana legalization and regulation are having an effect on the health of Alaskans 2018 BRFSS will include several questions related to marijuana

29 Office of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention (OSMAP) Monitoring health status allows programs to evaluate progress, make improvements, and design public awareness and education campaigns. Sustained funding will be necessary to continue this work.

30 Other resources

31 Other resources

32 Thanks! Jonathan Bressler, MPH (907) Jessica Filley, MPH (907)