| Title |
Longitudinal Studies on the Etiology of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Addiction Reports, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40429-017-0133-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly E. Courtney, Margie Hernandez Mejia, Joanna Jacobus |
| Abstract |
This review summarizes the literature to date that has capitalized on the longitudinal research study framework in order to elucidate the etiology of cannabis use disorders (CUDs). The studies are mixed with respect to reliable predictors of CUD development. Of the studies outlined, the most consistently indicated risk factors for CUD development include: male sex, past cannabis and other substance use (especially tobacco), and the presence of pre/comorbid psychopathology (especially mood disorders). Social motives and peer involvement may also play a role in this transition. Many of these CUD risk factors appear to be distinct from other factors linked with overall cannabis use. CUD development is likely the product of interactions between biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. However, many more well-planned and developmentally sensitive prospective studies are needed to identify specific and reliable risk factors for CUD development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,574,519
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Current Addiction Reports
#36
of 325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,691
of 310,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Addiction Reports
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.