| Title |
Exposure to and Content of Marijuana Product Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-017-0818-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patricia A. Cavazos-Rehg, Melissa J. Krauss, Shaina J. Sowles, Gabrielle M. Murphy, Laura J. Bierut |
| Abstract |
Many individuals now seek out product reviews in order to make an informed decision prior to making a purchase. In this study, we investigate consumers' exposure to and content within product reviews about marijuana because of their potential to shape marijuana purchasing decisions. The terms "weed review," "marijuana review," and "cannabis review" were searched on YouTube on June 10-11, 2015; the team viewed and coded the content of 83 product review videos about marijuana. In addition, we surveyed young adult (18-34 years old) current (past month) marijuana users (n = 742) from across the USA online to assess exposure to product reviews about marijuana and associations with socio-demographic characteristics and marijuana use behaviors. In our content analysis of videos, we observed that the reviewers tended to consume marijuana during the video and often shared personal, favorable experiences towards the marijuana they ingested (e.g., became as high as possible or experienced positive effects on physical and mental health). Most videos normalized marijuana use and could be easily accessed by underage youth. About one third (34%) of the survey participants viewed/sought a product review about marijuana in the past 30 days. In a multivariable logistic regression model, living in a state where recreational use is legal or using multiple forms of marijuana was associated with increased odds of viewing/seeking marijuana reviews. Prevention messages should counter product reviews about marijuana that tend to normalize and promote marijuana use given that they are more readily viewed by individuals who are increasingly susceptible to marijuana's potential harms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,549,793
of 25,408,670 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#566
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,205
of 325,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,408,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 325,838 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.