Legal Doesn’t Mean Understood: A Tool for Cannabis Literacy

Legal cannabis is here — but what do people really know about its health effects? We developed and validated a tool to measure cannabis health literacy: a step toward safer use, better education, and informed policy.

Published in Public Health and Education

Legal Doesn’t Mean Understood: A Tool for Cannabis Literacy
Like

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the URL to share elsewhere

This is a representation of how your post may appear on social media. The actual post will vary between social networks

Explore the Research

BioMed Central
BioMed Central BioMed Central

Development of a cannabis health literacy questionnaire: preliminary validation using the Rasch model - BMC Public Health

Background As cannabis becomes more integrated into Canadian society for medical and non-medical purposes, public health efforts have aimed to enhance public awareness and knowledge of the potential risks associated with cannabis use. However, no validated or established method to measure cannabis health literacy exists, limiting the ability to evaluate the impacts of public awareness initiatives. We aimed to develop and preliminarily validate a cannabis health literacy questionnaire (CHLQ) designed to measure an individual’s knowledge, understanding and utilization of health and safety information related to cannabis. Methods The CHLQ was developed using existing health literacy domains and alcohol health literacy attributes as a framework. The questions were informed by extensive literature, item-response theory principles and input from stakeholders and people who use cannabis. The CHLQ includes four dimensions: knowledge of cannabis, knowledge of risks, understanding of associated risks and harms, and the ability to seek, access and use cannabis information. Adult participants were recruited through an online survey platform and social media. The questionnaire was refined and revised over three iterations using the Rasch analysis. Our preliminary validation process analyzed the CHLQ’s reliability and construct validity examining separation reliability, item difficulty, item fit statistics and unidimensionality. Results A total of 1035 individuals across Canada completed our CHLQ. Each dimension of the CHLQ, had a well-distributed range of question difficulties. Across the four dimensions, item separation ranged from 9.93 to 17.29, and item reliability ranged from 0.99 to 1.00. Person separation ranged from 0.99 to 1.88, while person reliability ranged from 0.49 to 0.78. Most questions fit within the model, and unidimensionality was supported for all dimensions. Each dimension is scored separately with high scores indicating high knowledge or understanding for the respective domain. Raw scores for each dimension can be transformed to a linear Rasch score. Conclusions The CHLQ is a preliminary, multi-dimensional tool designed to measure cannabis health literacy for educational and research use. It demonstrates promising psychometric properties and provides an initial framework to inform public health efforts. Further validation in diverse population and settings is needed. The CHLQ provides foundation for future research, evaluation and public education efforts related to cannabis use.

Behind the Idea

When I first began thinking about this research, cannabis legalization in Canada was gaining momentum and with it, a wave of public opinions, media buzz, and policy shifts. But I felt as though something was missing. While cannabis is generally considered low risk compared to other substances, the reality is: anything you put in your body carries potential risks.

The normalization of cannabis use was moving quickly — maybe faster than our collective understanding. That was the spark. I started wondering: What do people really know about cannabis, its effects, and its potential harms? Not just anecdotally or on social media, but in a way that could be measured, studied, and used to inform public health strategies. If cannabis was going mainstream, so should cannabis education.

That led me to an idea that felt simple at first: build a tool to measure cannabis health literacy. A questionnaire. Something that could capture what the public knows (or doesn't know) about cannabis, validate that measure, and potentially use it later as a way to inform or assess education efforts in clinical or community settings.

Why It Matters

This research began with a core question: What do people actually know about cannabis, its risks, its effects, and its role in health? As legalization moves forward, understanding doesn’t automatically follow. Public education efforts exist, but their reach and impact remain unclear.

So, we asked: What should people know to make informed decisions? And just as importantly, how can we measure that knowledge in a valid, reliable way?

Cannabis health literacy isn’t just about knowing what Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or Cannabidiol (CBD) stand for. It’s about having the skills to make informed, safe, and intentional choices — especially as cannabis becomes more accessible. It draws on core health literacy principles: the ability to seek, understand, and apply health information to real-life decisions.

By creating a validated tool to measure that knowledge, we’re one step closer to supporting public education, informed policy, and better integration of cannabis-related conversations in healthcare. Whether it’s doctors screening patients, educators shaping harm reduction curricula, or governments assessing the impact of legalization, a literacy tool is a foundation to build on.

Key Highlights from the study

  • We developed the Cannabis Health Literacy Questionnaire (CHLQ) to assess individuals’ knowledge, understanding, and application of cannabis-related health and safety information across four dimensions:
    1. Knowledge of Cannabis (e.g. components, potency)
    2. Knowledge of Risks (e.g. mental and physical health)
    3. Understanding of Harms and Consequences (i.e., applying risk knowledge to real life)
    4. Ability to Seek, Access, and Use Cannabis Health Information (i.e., interacting with cannabis- health related information)
  • The tool was guided by established health literacy frameworks and refined through three iterative rounds with input from stakeholders and cannabis consumers.
  • We used Rasch analysis to validate the four dimensions, evaluating item difficulty, model fit, item and person separation, reliability, and unidimensionality.
  • Each dimension has a separate scoring system; higher raw scores indicate greater literacy in that area.
  • The CHLQ is suitable for use in descriptive and educational research. However, further validation — particularly across diverse populations and over time — is needed.

Looking Ahead

I hope this paper sparks a broader conversation about what I’d call “substance literacy” — not just for cannabis, but across the spectrum of substances. When we talk about harm reduction, we often focus on access and treatment. But understanding is harm reduction too.

We’re continuing to assess cannabis health literacy and are preparing a follow-up paper exploring what Canadians knew at the time of data collection. We welcome feedback and collaboration to further strengthen and refine the questionnaire.

My hope is that it opens doors for further research, better dialogue, and more thoughtful public health approaches. As cannabis shifts from taboo to typical, we need tools that keep pace with public knowledge and conversation.

The paper is now out in the world — but the conversation is just beginning.

Read the full paper here: Development of a cannabis health literacy questionnaire: preliminary validation using the Rasch model

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Follow the Topic

Public Health
Life Sciences > Health Sciences > Public Health
Literacy
Humanities and Social Sciences > Education > Skills > Literacy

Related Collections

With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.

Cancer in older adolescents and young adults

BMC Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on Cancer in older adolescents and young adults.

Cancer in older adolescents and young adults presents unique epidemiological challenges, with distinct patterns of incidence, risk factors and outcomes compared to other age groups. This Collection aims to enhance our understanding of cancers that affect these populations, such as gastrointestinal, endometrial, colorectal, cervical and breast cancers, some of which are HPV- or obesity-related. We invite research that explores disparities in cancer outcomes and advances evidence-based strategies for prevention, early detection, and management. For the purposes of this collection, we define older adolescents and young adults as being between 15 to 39 years old.

Topics of interest related to cancer in older adolescents and young adults include but are not limited to:

• Recent and longer-term trends in the incidence and mortality of different types of cancer

• Role of infectious, environmental, and lifestyle factors in cancer development

• Impact of obesity at age of diagnosis or prior obesity (such as during childhood) on subsequent cancer risk and outcomes

• Disparities in outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status

• Innovations in cancer prevention, screening, and early detection

• Long-term survivorship and quality of life among cancer survivors

• Policy implications for cancer prevention and control in younger populations

This collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3 Good Health & Well-Being.

All manuscripts submitted to this journal, including those submitted to collections and special issues, are assessed in line with our editorial policies and the journal’s peer review process. Reviewers and editors are required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Jun 26, 2026

Monitoring, preventing, and managing type 2 diabetes

BMC Public Health is calling for submissions to our Collection on Monitoring, preventing, and managing diabetes at the population level. With rates of type 2 diabetes rising globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities, prevention strategies are critical. As the disease progresses people with diabetes are at increased risk of complications such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, neuropathy and visual loss.

This Collection seeks submissions that explore population-level approaches to monitoring rates of diabetes, preventing or delaying the development of type 2 diabetes, and system-wide efforts to improve the management of the disease and reduce rates of complications, with a focus on improving health outcomes and reducing healthcare burdens.

Submissions are encouraged on primary prevention initiatives and culturally adapted, community-level interventions to reduce the risk of diabetes. Research aimed at improving systems for monitoring rates of diabetes and its complications through routinely-collected health data, or for improving management by enhancing patient engagement with healthcare systems or better identifying those in need, are encouraged. Research on diabetes education and support systems is also welcomed, with a focus on empowering individuals to adopt and sustain healthier lifestyles and avoid known causes of diabetes.

Additional topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

Access to healthcare and diabetes management

The impact of food insecurity on diabetes outcomes

Community-based interventions for low-income populations

Interventions to reduce exposure to environmental causes of diabetes

Financial barriers to diabetes medication and treatment

Housing instability, employment status and type 2 diabetes

Health literacy, poverty, and diabetes management

Policies to reduce poverty-related health disparities in diabetes

This Collection supports and amplifies research related to SDG 3: Good Health & Well-Being.

All manuscripts submitted to this journal, including those submitted to collections and special issues, are assessed in line with our editorial policies and the journal’s peer review process. Reviewers and editors are required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

Publishing Model: Open Access

Deadline: Jul 16, 2026