ArticleBMC public health2025
Development of a cannabis health literacy questionnaire: preliminary validation using the Rasch model.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Cannabis Health Literacy Questionnaire - Assessing Reliability and Known-Groups Validity in a Canadian Adult Sample.Journal of drug education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs cannabis becomes more integrated into Canadian society for medical and non-medical purposes, public health efforts have aimed to enhance public awareness and knowledge of the potential risks associated with cannabis use. However, no validated or established method to measure cannabis health literacy exists, limiting the ability to evaluate the impacts of public awareness initiatives. We aimed to develop and preliminarily validate a cannabis health literacy questionnaire (CHLQ) designed to measure an individual's knowledge, understanding and utilization of health and safety information related to cannabis.
methodsThe CHLQ was developed using existing health literacy domains and alcohol health literacy attributes as a framework. The questions were informed by extensive literature, item-response theory principles and input from stakeholders and people who use cannabis. The CHLQ includes four dimensions: knowledge of cannabis, knowledge of risks, understanding of associated risks and harms, and the ability to seek, access and use cannabis information. Adult participants were recruited through an online survey platform and social media. The questionnaire was refined and revised over three iterations using the Rasch analysis. Our preliminary validation process analyzed the CHLQ's reliability and construct validity examining separation reliability, item difficulty, item fit statistics and unidimensionality.
resultsA total of 1035 individuals across Canada completed our CHLQ. Each dimension of the CHLQ, had a well-distributed range of question difficulties. Across the four dimensions, item separation ranged from 9.93 to 17.29, and item reliability ranged from 0.99 to 1.00. Person separation ranged from 0.99 to 1.88, while person reliability ranged from 0.49 to 0.78. Most questions fit within the model, and unidimensionality was supported for all dimensions. Each dimension is scored separately with high scores indicating high knowledge or understanding for the respective domain. Raw scores for each dimension can be transformed to a linear Rasch score.
conclusionsThe CHLQ is a preliminary, multi-dimensional tool designed to measure cannabis health literacy for educational and research use. It demonstrates promising psychometric properties and provides an initial framework to inform public health efforts. Further validation in diverse population and settings is needed. The CHLQ provides foundation for future research, evaluation and public education efforts related to cannabis use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.