Exploring survey methods for measuring consumption quantities of cannabis flower and concentrate products

ABSTRACT

Background: Researchers need accurate measurements of cannabis consumption quantities to assess risks and benefits. Survey methods for measuring cannabis flower and concentrate quantities remain underdeveloped.

Objective: We examined “grams” and “hits” units for measuring flower and concentrate quantities, and calculating milligrams of THC (mgTHC).

Methods: Online survey participants (n = 2,381) reported preferred unit (hits or grams), past-week hits and grams for each product, and product %THC. Quantile regression compared mgTHC between unit-preference subgroups. Hits-based mgTHC calculations assumed a universal grams-per-hit ratio (GPHR). To examine individualized GPHRs, we tested a “two-item approach,” which divided total grams by total hits, and “one-item approach,” which divided 0.5 grams by responses to the question: “How many total hits would it take you to finish 1/2 g of your [product] by [administration method]?”

Results: Participants were primarily daily consumers (77%), 50% female sex, mean age 39.0 (SD 16.4), 85% White, 49% employed full-time. Compared to those who preferred the hits unit, those who preferred the grams unit reported consuming more hits and grams, higher %THC products, and consequently, larger median mgTHC (flower-hits mgTHC: 32 vs. 91 (95%CI: 52–67); flower-grams mgTHC: 27 vs. 113 (95%CI: 73–95); concentrate-hits mgTHC: 29 vs. 59 (95%CI: 15–43); concentrate-grams mgTHC: 61 vs. 129 (95%CI: 43–94)). “Two-item” and “one-item” approach GPHRs were similar and frequently 50% larger or smaller than the universal GPHR.

Conclusion: Allowing respondents to choose “hits” or “grams” when reporting cannabis quantities does not compromise mgTHC estimates. A low-burden, one-item approach yields individualized “hit sizes” that may improve mgTHC estimates.

KEYWORDS:

• Cannabis
• measurement
• quantity
• survey
• THC

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank David Hammond, Ryan Vandrey, Tory Spindle, Marcel Bonn-Miller, Carrie Cuttler, LaTrice Montgomery, Adam Leventhal, and the participants of this study.

Disclosure statement

Drs. Alan Budney and Jacob Borodovsky report funding from NIDA as a potential conflict of interest. Dr. Budney is a member of the Scientific Review Board of Canopy Growth and a consultant for Jazz Pharmaceuticals. All other authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Funding

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [R01-DA050032], [T32-DA037202], [P30-DA037202], [R21-DA057535]. The funding sources were not involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.