↓ Skip to main content

Non-medical and illicit use of psychoactive drugs

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 423: The Impact of Legalizing and Regulating Weed: Issues with Study Design and Emerging Findings in the USA
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
The Impact of Legalizing and Regulating Weed: Issues with Study Design and Emerging Findings in the USA
Chapter number 423
Book title
Non-medical and illicit use of psychoactive drugs
Published in
Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/7854_2015_423
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-960014-7, 978-3-31-960016-1
Authors

Hunt, Priscillia E, Miles, Jeremy, Priscillia E. Hunt, Jeremy Miles, Hunt, Priscillia E.

Abstract

Evaluations of the impact of medical and recreational marijuana laws rely on quasi- or natural experiments in which researchers exploit changes in the law and attempt to determine the impact of these changes on outcomes. This chapter reviews three key issues of causal inference in observational studies with respect to estimating of impact of medical or recreational laws on marijuana use-intervention definition, outcome measurement, and random assignment of study participants. We show that studies tend to use the same statistical approach (differences-in-differences) and yet find differential impacts of medical marijuana laws on adult use in particular. We demonstrate that these seemingly conflicting findings may be due to different years of analysis, ages of the study sample in each year, and assignment of jurisdictions to the control group versus treatment group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Psychology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Current topics in behavioral neurosciences
#399
of 497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,107
of 394,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current topics in behavioral neurosciences
#61
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 394,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.