In this analysis, participants lost to follow-up were assumed to still be engaging in risky cannabis use. In Step 1 of the logistic regression, any demographic or cannabis use characteristics that were significantly different at baseline were entered into the logistic regression. In step 2, experimental group was entered as a dummy coded variable . This step tested the hypothesis regarding the impact of personalized feedback intervention. Secondary hypothesis 2, reductions in perceptions regarding how much others used cannabis, was measured using a continuous scale. As such, the analytic procedure was the same as was employed for the primary hypothesis. Secondary hypothesis 3 was tested using the using the PROCESS macro  to examine whether reductions in perceptions of how much others use cannabis at three months  was positively associated with reductions in the participant’s risky cannabis use at six-month follow-up.Intervention condition was specified as the independent variable in the model to examine whether reductions in normative perceptions mediated the effect of the intervention on reductions in risky cannabis use at six-month follow-up. Bootstrapping was used  to calculate a bias-corrected confidence interval for the indirect effect.

In the current era of rapidly shifting cannabis policies,vertical grow rack there is a need for accessible and scalable interventions for individuals who are engaging in risky cannabis use. This study examined the efficacy of a brief, online personalized normative feedback intervention in a large, non-college sample of adults in Canada following national legalization of recreational cannabis use. Participants who received the personalized normative feedback intervention did not reduce their cannabis use between baseline and three- and six-month follow-ups to a greater extent than those who received the educational materials only. Further, while receiving the normative feedback information did have an impact of participants’ perceptions of how common cannabis use was among adults of the same age and gender, this change did not mediate the impact of the intervention on their own cannabis risk level. As such, it appears that the trial failed to find a significant impact of the intervention on cannabis use. There are several possible reasons for these findings. One possibility is that the educational materials also motivated reductions in cannabis use and the intervention was unable to promote a larger reduction than the provision of these materials alone.

However, the current trial was not designed to test for this possibility so it would be inappropriate to claim that both interventions worked vertical grow table. Another possibility is that the intervention was not an effective means of motivating reductions in cannabis use, particularly among our sample of somewhat heavier users of cannabis. As brief interventions are meant for those with ASSIST scores over 4, and not necessarily on the end of the scale, this may have contributed to the findings observed. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis uncovered that personalized normative feedback may not be effective at reducing drug use without the provision of additional interventions . While the literature is still quite young on the use of personalized normative feedback for substances other than alcohol, we cannot assume the intervention was completely ineffective. The intervention was developed based on a sound theoretical foundation and employed content that has demonstrated efficacy in motivating change in trials targeting other addictive behaviors. This does raise the interesting possibility that there is something different in the use of cannabis versus the consumption of alcohol that then makes social comparisons, and the correction of normative misperceptions, ineffective as a means to motivate change.

Perhaps, while the recreational use of cannabis is now legal in Canada, there is still a counter-cultural mystique to its use. Also related, some participants provided feedback that cannabis use was healthy and queried why we were trying to say its use was bad. While these comments were not common, they might capture the general tone of a proportion of those people recruited for the trial i.e., being unconcerned about their own cannabis use but instead participating because they were interested in issues relating to using cannabis . Other relevant factors to consider when interpreting the results of this trial have to do with the time when it was conducted. First, cannabis use was legalized just a few years previously and the ready availability of cannabis from commercial sources was still continuing to expand . This relative newness of cannabis as a legal substance might be a situation where normative comparisons are less meaningful to those receiving them. Further, with the prevalence of cannabis use increasing, it might be easier for participants to discount information about how much others smoke . Finally, it is unknown what the impact of the pandemic had on peoples’ need to find activities that were distracting  or on the efficacy of this intervention.