Associations between neighborhood disadvantage, cannabis use, and patient-reported outcomes among patients with cancer.

Brittney Greene, Shilpa Ghosh, Craig Colder, Salimah Meghani, Brooke Worster, Rebecca Ashare

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Brittney GreeneDepartment of Psychology at the State University of New York, University at Buffalo, United States.

Shilpa GhoshDepartment of Psychology at the State University of New York, University at Buffalo, United States.

Craig ColderDepartment of Psychology at the State University of New York, University at Buffalo, United States.

Salimah MeghaniUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, United States.

Brooke WorsterSidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, United States.

Rebecca AshareDepartment of Psychology at the State University of New York, University at Buffalo, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cannabis use is proliferating among oncological populations. However, research is limited on whether cannabis routes and sources are associated with neighborhood disadvantage and whether it moderates the relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This analysis evaluates the relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and cannabis source and route, and their association with PROs. Methods: Analyses included 106 patients with cancer from varying levels of neighborhood disadvantage. Logistic regressions tested the association of neighborhood disadvantage with cannabis source (i.e., regulated vs. unregulated) and route (i.e., inhaled vs. consumed/other formulations). Multilevel regressions tested the association of neighborhood disadvantage with PROs (e.g., anxiety, depression, sleep quality, pain, quality of life) and moderation by cannabis variables. Results: Neighborhood disadvantage did not uniquely predict cannabis source or route ( Conclusion: Although the composite index of neighborhood disadvantage was not associated with cannabis use or PROs, our data suggest that income and cannabis route may be key factors associated with health disparities among patients with cancer.

Indexed as

CancerCannabisCannabis routeCannabis sourceHealth outcomesNeighborhood disadvantage

Identifiers

PMID42256669

DOI10.1016/j.dadr.2026.100449

PMCPMC13234724

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.