ABSTRACT
Legalization of recreational cannabis in Ontario included the legalization of flower and herbs (Phase 1, October 2018), and was followed by the deregulation of cannabis retailers and sales of edibles (Phase 2, February 2020). Research on the impact of cannabis legalization on acute care utilization is nascet; no research has investigated potential age, gender, and geographically vulnerable subgroup effects. Residents living in Northern Ontario not only have higher levels of substance use problems, but also have inadequate access to primary healthcare. Our study investigated the impact of Ontario’s recreational cannabis policy (including Phase 1 and 2) on cannabis-attributable emergency department (ED) visits, and estimated the impact separately for different age and gender groups, with additional analyses focused on Northern Ontarians. We created a cohort of adults (18 and over) eligible for provincial universal health insurance with continuous coverage from 2015-2021 (n=14,900,820). An interrupted time-series was used to examine the immediate impact and month-to-month changes in cannabis-related ED visits associated with Phase 1 & 2 for each subgroup. While Northern Ontario has higher rates of cannabis-related ED visits, both Northern and Southern Ontario show similar patterns of changes. Phase 1 was associated with significant increases in adults 25-64, with the strongest increases seen in women 45-64. Month-to-month trends were flattened in most groups compared to pre-legalisation. Phase 2 was associated with significant immediate increases for adults aged 18-44 in both genders, but the increases were larger in women than men. No significant month-to-month changes were detected in this period. While current preventive efforts are largely focused on reducing cannabis-related harms in youths and younger adults, our results show that adults 25-64, particularly women, have been significantly impacted by cannabis policies. Further research on gender-specific cannabis dosage and targeted interventions for adult women should be investigated. Legalization did not appear to have a differential impact on Northern versus Southern Ontario, but higher rates of ED visits in the North should be addressed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AC (Project Grant FRN# 173447, NPI: Antony Chum) Funding for the study was provided by Canadian Institutes of Health Research https://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/cris/detail_e?pResearchId=9683895&p_version=CRIS&p_language=E&p_session_id=2307811 The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study complied with privacy regulations of the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Science (ICES). To protect privacy, all cell sizes fewer than six individuals were suppressed and reported as n < 6. Consent was not obtained for participants for the use of their data in this study. ICES is an independent, non-profit research institute whose legal status under Ontario’s health information privacy law allows it to collect and analyze health care and demographic data used for the study, without consent, for health system evaluation and improvement. All patient information was anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis. Ethics approval for this study was obtained through Brock University (REB# 20-134-CHUM).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding Funding for the study was provided by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Project Grant FRN# 173447, NPI: Antony Chum). The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Competing interests None declared.
Data Availability
The dataset from this study is held securely in coded form at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). While data sharing agreements prohibit ICES from making the dataset publicly available, access may be granted to those who meet pre- specified criteria for confidential access, available at www.ices.on.ca/DAS. The full dataset creation plan and underlying analytic code are available from the authors upon request, understanding that the computer programs may rely upon coding templates or macros that are unique to ICES and are therefore either inaccessible or may require modification.
