Objective: Prenatal cannabis use is increasing in prevalence and associated with potential harm to maternal-fetal health. Pregnant individuals who use cannabis seek information about prenatal cannabis use informally (e.g., online) and adopt practices perceived to reduce harm. However, no evidence-based harm reduction interventions address prenatal cannabis use. Cannabis protective behavioral strategies (PBS) are associated with less cannabis use and fewer cannabis-related negative consequences among non-pregnant populations. There is a lack of research exploring PBS during pregnancy. Method: This study combined two samples of pregnant individuals who use cannabis (N = 48; Mage = 30.33; 2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% Asian, 19% Black, 15% multiracial, 58% White). Participants completed the Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana scale (PBSM; Pedersen et al., 2017), adapted for pregnancy, and an open-ended question about prenatal PBS. We examined relationships between prenatal cannabis use, PBS, consequences, and perceived harm of prenatal cannabis use. Results: Participants reported using PBS (M = 4.07, SD = 0.93) and experiencing consequences in the past 30 days (M = 3.77, SD = 3.30). Higher perceived harm of cannabis to fetal health (B = 0.02, p = .010) and use in later trimesters (second: B = 0.69, p = .011; third: B = 0.82, p = .013) were positively associated with PBS. PBS was associated with lower weekly (IRR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.69, 0.90], p < .001) and daily prenatal cannabis use frequency (IRR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.33, 0.51], p = .001) but was not significantly associated with consequences. Open-ended responses revealed pregnancy-specific practices perceived to reduce harm (e.g., “I had a date set to quit and slowly decreased the amount I was smoking”). Conclusions: Results underscore the need for harm reduction research and validation of PBS and consequence measures for prenatal cannabis use to support informed decision-making among pregnant individuals who use cannabis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bolts et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: