Table 1.
Study sample characteristics according to cannabidiol use (n = 1969)
| Variable (% missing) | All participants (crude values) | CBD use (crude values) | Prevalence2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | No (N = 1772) | Yes (N = 197) | P-value1 | % [95% CI] | |
| Age (mean) in years (0) | 51.7 (18.5) | 52.8 (18.4) | 42.2 (16.7) | < 10–3 | / |
| Age (in years) (0) | |||||
| 18–24 | 205 (10.4) | 170 (9.6) | 35 (17.8) | < 10–3 | 17.1 [12.5 – 22.9]a |
| 25–34 | 278 (14.1) | 228 (12.9) | 50 (25.4) | 18.0 [13.9 – 23.0]a | |
| 35–49 | 440 (22.4) | 384 (21.7) | 56 (28.4) | 12.7 [9.9 – 16.2]a | |
| 50–64 | 503 (25.6) | 469 (26.5) | 34 (17.3) | 6.7 [4.9 – 9.3]b | |
| 65–74 | 291 (14.8) | 276 (15.6) | 15 (7.6) | 5.2 [3.1 – 8.4]bc | |
| ≥ 75 | 252 (12.8) | 245 (13.8) | 7 (3.6) | 2.8 [1.3 – 5.7]bc | |
| Gender (0) | |||||
| Men | 909 (46.2) | 803 (45.3) | 106 (53.8) | 0.023 | 11.7 [9.7 – 13.9] |
| Women | 1060 (53.8) | 969 (54.7) | 91 (46.2) | 8.6 [7.0 – 10.4] | |
| Country of birth (0) | |||||
| France | 1858 (94.4) | 1670 (94.2) | 188 (95.4) | 0.493 | 10.1 [8.8 – 11.6]a |
| Outside France | 111 (5.6) | 102 (5.8) | 9 (4.6) | 8.1 [4.2 – 15.0]a | |
| Region (0) | |||||
| Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine | 174 (8.8) | 148 (8.4) | 26 (13.2) | 0.327 | 14.9 [10.4 – 21.1]a |
| Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou–Charentes | 197 (10.0) | 180 (10.2) | 17 (8.6) | 8.6 [5.4 – 13.5]a | |
| Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes | 236 (12.0) | 206 (11.6) | 30 (15.2) | 12.7 [9.0 – 17.6]a | |
| Burgundy-Franche-Comté | 85 (4.3) | 75 (4.2) | 10 (5.1) | 11.8 [6.4 – 20.7]a | |
| Brittany | 115 (5.8) | 103 (5.8) | 12 (6.1) | 10.4 [6.0 – 17.6]a | |
| Centre-Val de Loire | 89 (4.5) | 83 (4.7) | 6 (3.0) | 6.7 [3.0 – 14.3]a | |
| Île-de-France | 333 (16.9) | 301 (17.0) | 32 (16.2) | 9.6 [6.9 – 13.3]a | |
| Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées | 183 (9.3) | 166 (9.4) | 17 (8.6) | 9.3 [5.8 – 14.5]a | |
| Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardy | 167 (8.5) | 154 (8.7) | 13 (6.6) | 7.8 [4.6 – 13.0]a | |
| Normandy | 108 (5.5) | 102 (5.8) | 6 (3.0) | 5.6 [2.5 – 11.9]a | |
| Pays de la Loire | 121 (6.1) | 107 (6) | 14 (7.1) | 11.6 [6.9 – 18.7]a | |
| Provence- Alpes-Côte d'Azur | 161 (8.2) | 147 (8.3) | 14 (7.1) | 8.7 [5.2 – 14.2]a | |
| City size (0) | |||||
| < 2 000 inhabitants (rural area) | 537 (27.3) | 488 (27.5) | 49 (24.9) | 0.839 | 9.1 [7.0 – 11.9]a |
| 2 000—20 000 inhabitants | 738 (37.5) | 663 (37.4) | 75 (38.1) | 10.2 [8.2 – 12.6]a | |
| 20 000—100 000 inhabitants | 414 (21.0) | 372 (21.0) | 42 (21.3) | 10.1 [7.6 – 13.5]a | |
| > 100 000 inhabitants | 280 (14.2) | 249 (14.1) | 31 (15.7) | 11.1 [7.9 – 15.3]a | |
| Socio-professional status (0) | |||||
| Farmer/ craftsperson, trader or business manager/ skilled or unskilled worker | 315 (16.0) | 270 (15.2) | 45 (22.8) | < 10–3 | 14.3 [10.8 – 18.6]a |
| Executive or higher intellectual profession/ Intermediate profession | 503 (25.5) | 438 (24.7) | 65 (33.0) | 12.9 [10.3 – 16.2]a | |
| Employee | 324 (16.5) | 285 (16.1) | 39 (19.8) | 12.0 [8.9 – 16.1]a | |
| Pensioner | 666 (33.8) | 636 (35.9) | 30 (15.2) | 4.5 [3.2 – 6.4] | |
| Other, no professional activity | 161 (8.2) | 143 (8.1) | 18 (9.1) | 11.2 [7.13 – 17.1]a | |
| Educational level (0) | |||||
| No upper secondary school certificate | 668 (33.9) | 608 (34.3) | 60 (30.5) | 0.278 | 9.0 [7.0 – 11.4]a |
| At least upper secondary school certificate | 1301 (66.1) | 1164 (65.7) | 137 (69.5) | 10.5 [9.0 – 12.3]a | |
| Dependent children (0) | |||||
| No | 1361 (69.1) | 1240 (70.0) | 121 (61.4) | 0.014 | 8.9 [7.5 – 10.5] |
| Yes | 608 (30.9) | 532 (30.0) | 76 (38.6) | 12.5 [10.1 – 15.4] | |
| Difficulty paying bills (0)3 | |||||
| Easy | 1238 (62.9) | 1115 (62.9) | 123 (62.4) | 0.893 | 9.9 [8.4 – 11.7]a |
| Difficult | 731 (37.1) | 657 (37.1) | 74 (37.6) | 10.1 [8.1 – 12.5]a | |
| Tobacco use (0.4) | |||||
| No | 1493 (76.1) | 1410 (79.8) | 83 (42.6) | < 10–3 | 5.6 [4.5 – 6.8] |
| Yes | 468 (23.9) | 356 (20.2) | 112 (57.4) | 23.9 [20.3 – 28.0] | |
| Alcohol use (0.3)4 | |||||
| Never | 516 (26.3) | 471 (26.7) | 45 (23.0) | 0.074 | 8.7 [6.6 – 11.5]a |
| Occasional | 965 (49.2) | 875 (49.5) | 90 (45.9) | 9.3 [7.6 – 11.3]a | |
| Regular | 482 (24.6) | 421 (23.8) | 61 (31.1) | 12.7 [10.0 – 15.9]a | |
| Cannabis use (0.5) | |||||
| No | 1840 (93.9) | 1715 (96.9) | 125 (65.8) | < 10–3 | 6.8 [5.7 – 8.0] |
| Yes | 119 (6.1) | 54 (3.1) | 65 (34.2) | 54.6 [45.5 – 63.4] | |
| Self-reported general health status (0)5 | |||||
| Good | 1232 (62.6) | 1112 (62.8) | 120 (60.9) | 0.023 | 9.7 [8.2 – 11.5]a |
| Quite good | 559 (28.4) | 510 (28.8) | 49 (24.9) | 8.8 [6.7 – 11.4]a | |
| Poor | 178 (9.0) | 150 (8.5) | 28 (14.2) | 15.7 [11.1 – 21.9] | |
| Chronic disease or health problem (0) | |||||
| No | 995 (50.5) | 912 (51.5) | 83 (42.1) | 0.020 | 8.3 [6.8 – 10.2]a |
| One | 712 (36.2) | 634 (35.8) | 78 (39.6) | 11.0 [8.9 – 13.5]ab | |
| More than one | 262 (13.3) | 226 (12.8) | 36 (18.3) | 13.7 [10.1 – 18.5]b | |
| ‘Alternative medicines provide better solutions to health problems than conventional medicines’ (0.3) | |||||
| Disagree | 497 (25.3) | 456 (25.8) | 41 (20.9) | < 10–3 | 8.3 [6.1 – 11.0]a |
| Agree | 597 (30.4) | 500 (28.3) | 97 (49.5) | 16.3 [13.5 – 19.4] | |
| No opinion | 869 (44.3) | 811 (45.9) | 58 (29.6) | 6.7 [5.2 – 8.5]a | |
| Preferred means to obtain information (0) | |||||
| Television | 621 (31.5) | 556 (31.4) | 65 (33) | 0.864 | 10.5 [8.3 – 13.1]a |
| Radio | 211 (10.7) | 188 (10.6) | 23 (11.7) | 10.9 [7.3 – 15.9]a | |
| Print media | 190 (9.7) | 173 (9.8) | 17 (8.6) | 9.0 [5.6 – 14.0]a | |
| Online media | 205 (10.4) | 185 (10.4) | 20 (10.2) | 9.8 [6.4 – 14.7]a | |
| Other internet 6 | 345 (17.5) | 307 (17.3) | 38 (19.3) | 11.0 [8.1 – 14.8]a | |
| Close family members and friends | 397 (20.2) | 363 (20.5) | 34 (17.3) | 8.6 [6.2 – 11.8]a | |
| Had heard of CBD (0)7 | |||||
| Had never heard of CBD | 605 (30.7) | 605 (34.1) | 0 (0) | < 10–3 | / |
| Only heard of the term ‘CBD’ | 477 (24.2) | 434 (24.5) | 43 (21.8) | 9.0 [6.8 – 11.9]a | |
| Knew a little about CBD | 591 (30.0) | 539 (30.4) | 52 (26.4) | 8.8 [6.8 – 11.4]a | |
| Had good knowledge of CBD | 194 (9.9) | 139 (7.8) | 55 (27.9) | 28.4 [22.4 – 35.1] | |
| Had very good knowledge of CBD | 102 (5.2) | 55 (3.1) | 47 (23.9) | 46.1 [36.6 – 55.9] | |
| ‘Do you think that CBD is harmful for health?’ (30.7)7 | |||||
| Did not want to answer | 6 (0.4) | 5 (0.4) | 1 (0.5) | < 10–3 | 16.7 [1.2 – 77.0]ab |
| No opinion | 325 (23.8) | 308 (26.4) | 17 (8.6) | 5.2 [3.3 – 8.3]a | |
| Not at all | 397 (29.1) | 286 (24.5) | 111 (56.3) | 28.0 [23.8 – 32.6]b | |
| Slightly harmful | 382 (28.0) | 342 (29.3) | 40 (20.3) | 10.5 [7.8 – 13.9]a | |
| Quite harmful | 171 (12.5) | 155 (13.3) | 16 (8.1) | 9.4 [5.8 – 14.8]a | |
| Very harmful | 83 (6.1) | 71 (6.1) | 12 (6.1) | 14.5 [8.3 – 23.9]ab | |
CBD cannabidiol, CI confidence interval
1 Chi-squared tests and Student’s t-tests were used in for categorical and continuous variables, respectively
2 Common superscript letters denote prevalences not statistically different between modalities. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied
3 Very easy or easy vs. difficult or very difficult
4 Never vs. occasional (less than once a week or around once a week) vs. regular (several times a week or every day or almost every day)
5 Very good or good vs. quite good vs. poor or very poor
6 Non-media websites and social networks
7 The term ‘CBD’ was used in these questions