Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41370076›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cannabis Retailer Advice on Blunt, Tobacco, and Cannabis Use During Pregnancy.

Kelly C Young-Wolff, Monique B Does, Rahel Negusse, Shannon N Ogden, Joshua R Nugent, Lynn D Silver, Aurash J Soroosh, Torri D Metz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Kelly C Young-WolffDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Monique B DoesDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Rahel NegusseDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Shannon N OgdenDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Joshua R NugentDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Lynn D SilverPrevention Policy Group Public Health Institute, Oakland, California.
Aurash J SorooshPrevention Policy Group Public Health Institute, Oakland, California.
Torri D MetzUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pregnant individuals seeking information about the safety of prenatal cannabis use may view budtenders (individuals who work at cannabis retailers) as a trusted source of information. However, the recommendations that budtenders provide to pregnant individuals considering cannabis use are unknown. Objective: To characterize how budtenders respond to questions about the safety of blunt, tobacco, and cannabis use during pregnancy, and to evaluate whether advice varied by indication for use or by whether the retailer provided delivery. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of California cannabis retailers, mystery shoppers posed as pregnant individuals looking for advice about the safety of prenatal substance use. Telephone calls with randomly selected licensed storefront retailers were conducted from February 26, 2024, to January 28, 2025. Exposures: Mystery shoppers followed 2 versions of a script (mental health vs no mental health indications for use) with questions about the safety of prenatal blunt, tobacco, and cannabis use. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was retailers' responses about the safety of prenatal blunt, tobacco, and cannabis use. Secondary outcomes included product recommendations, opinions on safer vs more harmful modes of prenatal cannabis use, and whether to speak with a physician. Results: Of the 505 employees at selected retailers (ie, budtenders), 79.6% (95% CI, 74.8%-83.7%) said prenatal blunt use was unsafe, 79.2% (95% CI, 74.4%-86.4%) said prenatal tobacco use was unsafe, and 40.4% (95% CI, 35.1%-45.9%) said prenatal cannabis use was unsafe. More advised that prenatal cannabis use was safe (20.6%; 95% CI, 16.0%-26.1%) vs blunts (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.9%) or tobacco (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.9%) or stated that they could not give advice about the safety of prenatal cannabis (19.8%; 95% CI, 15.3%-25.2%) vs tobacco (14.3%; 95% CI, 10.5%-19.2%). Only 5.7% (95% CI, 4.0%-8.1%) mentioned store or product warnings. Budtender recommendations included low- or no-tetrahydrocannabinol cannabis products, harm reduction (eg, use less frequently), and noncannabis strategies (eg, mindfulness). Edibles were most endorsed as safe, while smoking was most endorsed as harmful. Overall, 44.0% (95% CI, 37.3%-50.8%) recommended speaking to a physician before prompting and 46.1% (95% CI, 39.4%-53.0%) after prompting. Responses were generally similar regardless of stated indication for use or delivery service availability. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, most budtenders advised against prenatal blunt and tobacco use. Fewer advised against prenatal cannabis use, highlighting the need for more visible, effective warnings and mandatory budtender education covering risks of prenatal cannabis use.

Indexed as

CommerceMarijuana SmokingMarijuana UsePregnant PeopleAdultCaliforniaCannabisCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41370076
PMCPMC13372022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.