Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 23;18:65. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00512-5

Table 3.

Cannabis substitution models: participant and staff perceptions

MAP participants N = 19 (%) Residential/shelter MAPs N = 16 (%)
Willingness to participate
CSP, no model specified
 Yes 16 (84.2%)
 No 2 (10.5%)
 Don’t know 1 (5.3%)
CSP, partial substitution
 Yes 15 (78.9%)
 No 3 (16%)
 Don’t know 1 (5.3%)
CSP, complete substitution
 Yes 12 (63.2%)
 No 5 (26.3%)
 Don’t know 2 (10.5%)
Willingness to participate in CSP-Sub-models
Partial substitution, staff administration at fixed times 15 (78.9%) 15 (93.8%)
Partial substitution, staff administration by participant choice 13 (68.4%) 13 (81.3%)
Partial substitution, self-administration 11 (57.9%) 8 (50.0%)
Complete substitution, staff administration at fixed times 9 (47.4%) 9 (56.3%)
Complete substitution, self-administration 6 (31.6%) 4 (25.0%)
NA
Preference of CSP sub-models(1st ranked option)
Partial substitution, staff administration at fixed times 3 (15.8%) 3 (18.8%)
Partial substitution, staff administration by participant choice 5 (26.3%) 5 (31.3%)
Partial substitution, self-administration 6 (31.6%) 3 (18.8%)
Complete substitution, staff administration at fixed times 0 0
Complete substitution, self-administration 4 (21.1%) 4 (25.0%)
NA 1 (5.3%) 1 (6.3%)
MAP staff N = 17 (%) N = 14 (%)
Feasibility of CSP sub-models (1st ranked option)
Partial substitution, staff administration at fixed times 5 (29.4%) 5 (35.7%)
Partial substitution, staff administration by participant choice 7 (41.2%) 7 (50.0%)
Partial substitution, self-administration 3 (17.6%) 0
Complete substitution, staff administration at fixed times 0 0
Complete substitution, self-administration 0 0