Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296507›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Does liberalisation of cannabis policy influence levels of use in adolescents and young adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Maria Melchior, Aurélie Nakamura, Camille Bolze, Félix Hausfater, Fabienne El Khoury, Murielle Mary-Krause, Marine Azevedo Da Silva

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. How tax structures for retail cannabis shape cannabis use among youth and young adults: evidence from a volumetric choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maria MelchiorDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM UMRS 1136 IPLESP, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2377-619X
Aurélie NakamuraDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM UMRS 1136 IPLESP, Paris, France.
Camille BolzeDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM UMRS 1136 IPLESP, Paris, France.
Félix HausfaterDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM UMRS 1136 IPLESP, Paris, France.
Fabienne El KhouryDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM, Paris, France.
Murielle Mary-KrauseDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM UMRS 1136 IPLESP, Paris, France.
Marine Azevedo Da SilvaDepartment of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the effect of cannabis policy liberalisation (decriminalisation and legalisation) levels of use in adolescents and young adults.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies were conducted among individuals younger than 25 years and quantitatively assessing consequences of cannabis policy change. We excluded articles: (A) exclusively based on participants older than 25 years; (B) only reporting changes in perceptions of cannabis use; (C) not including at least two measures of cannabis use; (D) not including quantitative data; and (E) reviews, letters, opinions and policy papers. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science were searched through 1 March 2018. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent readers reviewed the eligibility of titles and abstracts and read eligible articles, and four authors assessed the risk of bias (Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies). Extracted data were meta-analysed. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO.

results3438 records were identified via search terms and four via citation lists; 2312 were retained after removal of duplicates, 99 were assessed for eligibility and 41 were included in our systematic review. 13 articles examined cannabis decriminalisation, 20 examined legalisation for medical purposes and 8 examined legalisation for recreational purposes. Findings regarding the consequences of cannabis decriminalisation or legalisation for medical purposes were too heterogeneous to be meta-analysed. Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a small increase in cannabis use among adolescents and young adults following legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes (standardised mean difference of 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to -0.07). Nevertheless, studies characterised by a very low/low risk of bias showed no evidence of changes in cannabis use following policy modifications.

conclusionsCannabis policy liberalisation does not appear to result in significant changes in youths' use, with the possible exception of legalisation for recreational purposes that requires monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018083950.

Indexed as

CannabisPublic OpinionAdolescentCriminal LawDrug and Narcotic ControlHumansLegislation, DrugYoung Adultadolescentscannabismarijuanapolicy

Identifiers

PMID31296507
PMCPMC6624043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.