Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 21;35(1):153–159. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05335-6

Table 4.

Association between Sources of Information About Marijuana and Believing Misinformation About Marijuana According to Individual Statements

Smoking marijuana has preventive health benefits (strongly or somewhat agree)
N* = 2334
Secondhand marijuana smoke is completely or somewhat safe
N* = 1418
Marijuana use during pregnancy is completely or somewhat safe
N* = 567
Marijuana is not at all addictive
N* = 1988
N* Unadj OR (95% CI) Adj OR (95% CI) N* Unadj OR (95% CI) Adj OR (95% CI) N* Unadj OR (95% CI) Adj OR (95% CI) N* Unadj OR (95% CI) Adj OR (95% CI)
Social media platform, Google, or other Internet search 439 1.40 (1.24, 1.57) 1.32 (1.17, 1.49) 273 1.43 (1.25, 1.64) 1.27 (1.11, 1.46) 102 1.31 (1.07, 1.59) 1.17 (0.95, 1.44) 376 1.49 (1.31, 1.69) 1.42 (1.24, 1.61)
Advertisement, marijuana dispensary, or other industry sources 119 2.56 (1.97, 3.31) 2.11 (1.61, 2.77) 87 3.56 (2.73, 4.62) 3.00 (2.27, 3.96) 44 3.91 (2.83, 5.32) 2.91 (2.07, 4.03) 113 2.60 (1.99, 3.37) 2.48 (1.89, 3.25)
Friends or relatives 517 1.45 (1.29, 1.62) 1.30 (1.15, 1.46) 355 1.63 (1.43, 1.85) 1.43 (1.25, 1.63) 138 1.44 (1.19, 1.73) 1.21 (0.99, 1.46) 400 1.21 (1.07, 1.37) 1.17 (1.03, 1.33)
Health professional 524 0.90 (0.81, 1.00) 0.92 (0.82, 1.03) 293 0.91 (0.80, 1.03) 0.93 (0.82, 1.07) 115 0.83 (0.68, 1.01) 0.86 (0.70, 1.04) 438 0.90 (0.80, 1.01) 0.90 (0.79, 1.01)
Traditional media platform 375 0.67 (0.59, 0.76) 0.82 (0.73, 0.94) 164 0.40 (0.34, 0.47) 0.50 (0.42, 0.60) 52 0.38 (0.29, 0.49) 0.51 (0.38, 0.67) 314 0.64 (0.56, 0.73) 0.71 (0.62, 0.81)
Politician or law enforcement professional 68 0.60 (0.47, 0.77) 0.55 (0.42, 0.71) 42 0.60 (0.44, 0.81) 0.60 (0.43, 0.81) 21 0.72 (0.45, 1.09) 0.70 (0.44, 1.07) 56 0.61 (0.46, 0.79) 0.60 (0.45, 0.79)

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval

*Unweighted N

Odds ratios for the sources of information about marijuana are presented for multivariate models that included each source of information about marijuana, adjusted for socio-demographic characters (age, gender race/ethnicity, education, income, employment) and legalization status in the state of residence. There was a separate model for each source of information, and the referent in each model was all other sources of information