Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30676801›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health2019

Conflict of Interest Provisions in State Laws Governing Medical and Adult Use Cannabis.

Candice M Bowling, Stanton A Glantz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Candice M BowlingCandice M. Bowling is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Stanton A. Glantz is with the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
Stanton A GlantzCandice M. Bowling is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Stanton A. Glantz is with the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

Funding

Effect of Tobacco Advocacy at the State LevelR01DA043950 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI APOLLONIO, DOROTHY ELINOR · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA043950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the acceleration of cannabis legalization in the United States has spurred innovations in public administration and policymaking, there have been news accounts of public employees engaged in cannabis licensure or enforcement that constitute conflicts of interest (COIs). After conducting 3 surveys in 50 states (including Washington, DC as a state), we found that COI provisions pertaining to cannabis-related public employment fell into 2 categories: subject matter general and cannabis specific. Only 20% (6/30) of the states that legalized medical cannabis had COI provisions in their medical cannabis codes, whereas the remaining 80% rely on subject matter general provisions relating to all areas of regulated subject matter, highlighting the need for thoughtful creation of COI rules in future policymaking. By contrast, 88% (7/8) of states that have legalized adult use cannabis put their COI provisions directly in their cannabis codes or regulations. Governments should enact cannabis-specific COI policies applicable to broadly defined categories of public employees that are responsive to the unique context of bringing cannabis from the black market into the regulated market.

Indexed as

Federal GovernmentLegislation, DrugMedical MarijuanaPolicy MakingState GovernmentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overConflict of InterestDistrict of ColumbiaFemaleHumansMaleMarijuana SmokingMiddle AgedUnited StatesMedical Marijuana

Identifiers

PMID30676801
PMCPMC6366528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.