Abstract：
We were engaged by policy stakeholders to undertake a scoping review of cannabis measurement instruments to inform the evaluation of cannabis legalization impacts. We identified instruments employed in population-based or clinical research to screen and assess cannabis use, including measurement properties. We also identified the content domains included in each instrument and gaps in the measurement of key priority areas as established by policy stakeholders.
We followed PRISMA and conducted searches on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, HAPI, Scopus and grey literature. We included publications from the past 15 years that reported the use of an instrument to measure cannabis use. Six study team members calibrated screening and data abstraction, independently identified records and abstracted data.
Across 915 included publications, we identified 187 unique instruments covering seven content domains and 35 subdomains. The most identified instruments were the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the Timeline Follow-Back and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (109/915; 91/915; 64/915). The Canadian Cannabis Survey addressed the most subdomains (22/35). Frequency of use, prevalence of use, and mental health impacts were the most addressed subdomains (110/187; 94/187; 67/187) and storage, growing cannabis, and second-hand exposure were the least addressed (1/187; 4/187; 6/187).
This research identified instruments and domains critical to the assessment of public health impacts of cannabis legalization, which can facilitate the harmonization of measures to inform policy development. Future research should develop new instruments for less commonly-addressed constructs and thoroughly explore psychometric properties of existing instruments.
We followed PRISMA and conducted searches on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, HAPI, Scopus and grey literature. We included publications from the past 15 years that reported the use of an instrument to measure cannabis use. Six study team members calibrated screening and data abstraction, independently identified records and abstracted data.
Across 915 included publications, we identified 187 unique instruments covering seven content domains and 35 subdomains. The most identified instruments were the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the Timeline Follow-Back and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (109/915; 91/915; 64/915). The Canadian Cannabis Survey addressed the most subdomains (22/35). Frequency of use, prevalence of use, and mental health impacts were the most addressed subdomains (110/187; 94/187; 67/187) and storage, growing cannabis, and second-hand exposure were the least addressed (1/187; 4/187; 6/187).
This research identified instruments and domains critical to the assessment of public health impacts of cannabis legalization, which can facilitate the harmonization of measures to inform policy development. Future research should develop new instruments for less commonly-addressed constructs and thoroughly explore psychometric properties of existing instruments.
摘要：
政策利益相关者参与了对大麻测量工具的范围审查，以评估大麻合法化的影响。我们确定了基于人群或临床研究中使用的筛选和评估大麻使用的工具，包括测量属性。我们还确定了每个工具中包含的内容领域，以及政策利益相关者在衡量关键优先领域方面的差距。
我们关注PRISMA并在MEDLINE上进行搜索,PsycINFO,WebofScience,EMBASE,HAPI,Scopus和灰色文学。我们包括过去15年的出版物，这些出版物报道了使用一种工具来衡量大麻的使用情况。六名研究小组成员校准筛选和数据抽象，独立识别的记录和抽象的数据。
共有915种出版物，我们确定了187种独特的仪器,涵盖7个内容域和35个子域.识别最多的仪器是综合国际诊断访谈，时间线随访和全国酒精及相关疾病流行病学调查(109/915;91/915;64/915)。加拿大大麻调查涉及大多数子领域（22/35）。使用频率,使用的普遍性，和心理健康影响是处理最多的子领域(110/187；94/187；67/187)和储存，种植大麻,和二手曝光最少（1/187;4/187;6/187）。
这项研究确定了对评估大麻合法化对公共卫生影响至关重要的工具和领域。这可以促进协调为政策制定提供信息的措施。未来的研究应该为不太常见的结构开发新的工具，并彻底探索现有工具的心理测量特性。
我们关注PRISMA并在MEDLINE上进行搜索,PsycINFO,WebofScience,EMBASE,HAPI,Scopus和灰色文学。我们包括过去15年的出版物，这些出版物报道了使用一种工具来衡量大麻的使用情况。六名研究小组成员校准筛选和数据抽象，独立识别的记录和抽象的数据。
共有915种出版物，我们确定了187种独特的仪器,涵盖7个内容域和35个子域.识别最多的仪器是综合国际诊断访谈，时间线随访和全国酒精及相关疾病流行病学调查(109/915;91/915;64/915)。加拿大大麻调查涉及大多数子领域（22/35）。使用频率,使用的普遍性，和心理健康影响是处理最多的子领域(110/187；94/187；67/187)和储存，种植大麻,和二手曝光最少（1/187;4/187;6/187）。
这项研究确定了对评估大麻合法化对公共卫生影响至关重要的工具和领域。这可以促进协调为政策制定提供信息的措施。未来的研究应该为不太常见的结构开发新的工具，并彻底探索现有工具的心理测量特性。
