Skip to main content

Table 3 Cannabis substitution models: participant and staff perceptions

From: “If I knew I could get that every hour instead of alcohol, I would take the cannabis”: need and feasibility of cannabis substitution implementation in Canadian managed alcohol programs

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