A Polydrug and Psychosocial Profile of Synthetic Cannabinoid Use in a New York City Community Sample, 2016–2017

Abstract

Background: Epidemiologic reports available on synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) have focused on sociodemographics, indicating high prevalence of SC use predominantly among white, relatively affluent, males. However, there is emerging evidence suggesting high SC prevalence among socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic minority males. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate the risk correlates of SC use among psychosocial vulnerable communities. Method: The sample of 100 participants was recruited from two harm reduction-focused, community-based organizations in the South Bronx and East Harlem neighborhoods in New York City. Consented individuals 18 years and older underwent a 30- minute survey ascertaining sociodemographics, psychosocial characteristics, SC and polydrug use characteristics, and mental health history. Results: The study population was majority male (61%), Latino (56%), commonly diagnosed with psychiatric illness (67%), and with a mean age of 45.4. Those reporting SC use (74%) were more likely to be male, homeless, and report polydrug use. After adjustment, being male (AOR = 5.64), homelessness (AOR = 4.88) along with cocaine (AOR = 5.63) and opiate use (AOR = 31.1) were independently associated with SC use. The most common reasons for using SC were affordability, inability to detect SC in drug tests, and perceived physical and emotional benefits. Conclusion/importance: This work is significant in expanding the populations thought to be impacted by and understanding social disparities related to SC use. Further investigation is needed to assess the relationship between concomitant use of SC and other drug, particularly opiates. This may suggest that the sequelae of one drug may enhance or alleviate the effects of the other.

Keywords:

• Synthetic cannabinoids
• polydrug use
• homelessness
• behavioral health comorbidity
• community sample

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.