↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between Adolescent Marijuana Use and Young Adult Illicit Drug Use

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Genetics, March 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Relationship between Adolescent Marijuana Use and Young Adult Illicit Drug Use
Published in
Behavior Genetics, March 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10519-006-9064-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey M. Lessem, Christian J. Hopfer, Brett C. Haberstick, David Timberlake, Marissa A. Ehringer, Andrew Smolen, John K. Hewitt

Abstract

: We examined three components of the "gateway theory" in relation to marijuana use: (1) whether adolescent marijuana use predicts young adult drug use, (2) whether this association persists when controlling for similar family background, (3) whether common genetic or environmental factors contribute to the association. The three components were tested in adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health assessed twice during adolescence and then re-interviewed 5 years later. Component 1 was tested in 18,286 subjects, component 2 in sibling pairs (n=360) discordant for marijuana use, and component 3 in a genetically informative sub-sample (n=4846). Marijuana use was defined as any use during adolescence, and drug use was defined as self-reported past year use of other illicit drugs besides marijuana. Marijuana users were twice as likely to use illicit drugs as young adults than non-users. Shared environmental factors mediated much of the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and young adult drug use. The association remained, however, even when controlling for familial environmental and other measured factors.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Other 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 28%
Social Sciences 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Unspecified 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Other 11 23%

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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,674,682
of 8,025,150 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Genetics
#160
of 529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,653
of 176,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Genetics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,025,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 176,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.