Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31382201›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2019

The impacts of potency, warning messages, and price on preferences for Cannabis flower products.

Yuyan Shi, Ying Cao, Ce Shang, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Developing an online cannabis store paradigm for Cannabis Regulatory Science.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yuyan ShiDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: yus001@ucsd.edu.
Ying CaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Ce ShangStephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA.
Rosalie Liccardo PaculaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
RAND Corporation · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Oklahoma · US

Funding

Neighborhood Physical, Economic, and Socioeconomic Environment In Relation to Marijuana Use and DisorderR01DA042290 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SHI, YUYAN · 2017 to 2020
$2.6M
US and International Evidence on Factors Leading to Tax Avoidance and Evasion and Their Impact on Drinking Behaviors and ConsequencesK99AA024810 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI SHANG, CE · 2016 to 2017
$325k
NIAAA NIH HHS K99 AA024810NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecreational cannabis has been legalized in 11 states and Washington DC in the US. However, little is known about individual preferences for legal cannabis products. This study estimated the impacts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), warning messages, and price on preferences for cannabis flowers.

methodsA cross-sectional online survey with discrete choice experiments was implemented in October 2017. A sample of 2400 adults aged 21 years or older were recruited from 6 US states with recreational cannabis legalization, consisting of 1200 past-year nonusers and 1200 past-year users. Each respondent was randomly assigned to 12 discrete choice scenarios, each asking them to choose from an opt-out option and 3 cannabis flower products with varying levels in THC, CBD, warning messages, and price. The impacts of product attributes on individual choices were analyzed with nested logit regressions.

resultsBoth cannabis nonusers and users preferred higher CBD and lower price. Users also preferred higher THC. The results on warning messages were mixed: graphic warning on drugged driving and text warning message had positive impacts on nonusers' and users' preferences for cannabis flowers, respectively, whereas FDA disapproval disclaimer had negative impacts on nonusers' preferences. Heterogeneities in preferences were revealed among nonusers by former use status and among users by reason of use. Particularly, medical cannabis users were not as responsive to THC as recreational cannabis users or dual users were. Regarding relative importance of the attributes, all respondents but medical cannabis users perceived price as the most important attribute (relative importance 51-64%), whereas medical cannabis users perceived CBD as the most important attribute (relative importance 47%).

conclusionThe findings indicated that product characteristics may have influences on US adults' choices of legal cannabis flower products and may deserve consideration for cannabis regulatory framework.

Indexed as

AdultCannabidiolCannabisChoice BehaviorCommerceCross-Sectional StudiesDronabinolFemaleFlowersHumansLegislation, DrugMaleMarijuana SmokingMedical MarijuanaMiddle AgedProduct LabelingCannabidiolDronabinolMedical MarijuanaCannabis legalizationDiscrete choice experimentsPotencyPriceWarning message

Identifiers

PMID31382201
PMCPMC6893125
OpenAlexW2964783605

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.