You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Public opinion and medical cannabis policies: examining the role of underlying beliefs and national medical cannabis policies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12954-015-0082-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharon R. Sznitman, Anne Line Bretteville-Jensen |
| Abstract |
Debate about medical cannabis legalization are typically informed by three beliefs: (1) cannabis has medical effects, (2) medical cannabis is addictive and (3) medical cannabis legalization leads to increased used of cannabis for recreational purposes (spillover effects). We examined how strongly these beliefs are associated with public support for medical cannabis legalization and whether this association differs across divergent medical cannabis policy regimes. Robust regression analysis was used to analyse data derived from two nationally representative samples of adults participating in comparable cross-sectional online surveys in one country where medical cannabis smoking is illegal (Norway, n = 2175, 51 % male) and in one country where medical cannabis smoking is legal (Israel, n = 648, 49 % male). The belief that cannabis has medical benefits was more strongly related to support for medical cannabis legalization than were beliefs about addiction and spillover effects. While the support for medical cannabis legalization was stronger in Israel than in Norway (78 vs. 51 %, p < 0.01), the belief variables had, in general, more impact on the policy stand in Norway. The belief that cannabis has medical benefits is particularly salient for support for medical cannabis legalization. It is possible that the recent surge in evidence supporting the medical benefits of cannabis will increase the belief about medical benefits of cannabis in the general population which may in turn increase public support for medical cannabis legalization. Results also suggest that once medical cannabis is legalized, factors beyond cannabis-specific beliefs will increasingly influence medical cannabis legalization support. These conclusions are, however, only suggestive as the current study is based on cross-sectional data. Hopefully, future research will be able to capitalize on changes in medical cannabis policies and conduct longitudinal studies that enable an examination of the causal relation between public opinion and medical cannabis policy changes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 2 | 33% |
| Comoros | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 17% |
| Researcher | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 60 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 7% |
| Psychology | 15 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 72 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,181,217
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#722
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,785
of 285,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.