#88
High practical relevance
This paper does not test efficacy, but it speaks directly to a fast-growing real-world pattern clinicians are already seeing in older patients.
This is a prevalence and correlates paper, not a treatment trial. Its value is that it shows who is using CBD in later life and what patterns travel with that use, while reminding clinicians not to mistake correlation for benefit, safety, or causality.
CBD Epidemiology
Cannabis Co-Use
Mental Health
Clinical Counseling
| Audience | Clinicians, informed patients, caregivers, and health journalists |
| Primary Topic | CBD use among older adults |
| Source | Read the full article |
Table of Contents
- CBD Use Among Older Adults: What This National Survey Really Shows
- Frequently Asked Questions
- 1. Was this a study of CBD treatment effectiveness?
- 2. How common was CBD use in this sample?
- 3. Was CBD use more common than cannabis use in older seniors?
- 4. Did the study prove that CBD helps older adults?
- 5. What was the strongest association in the paper?
- 6. Did the paper identify what kind of CBD products people used?
- 7. Why is self-report a problem in CBD research?
- 8. What should clinicians do with this information?
- 9. Does the paper suggest a substitution effect away from opioids or other medications?
- 10. What is the main takeaway for readers?
- Frequently Asked Questions
CBD Use Among Older Adults: What This National Survey Really Shows
CBD use among older adults is no longer a niche phenomenon. This large national survey does not tell us whether CBD is working, but it does tell us who is using it, how often that use overlaps with cannabis, and why clinicians should be asking much more specific questions when older patients say they take โCBD.โ
This paper is a cross-sectional epidemiologic analysis of the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, focused specifically on adults age 50 and older. Its main contribution is not proving benefit or harm, but showing that past-year CBD use is common in later life, especially notable in adults 65 and older, where reported CBD use exceeded reported cannabis use. It also shows that CBD use strongly clusters with both medical and nonmedical cannabis use, and that different health and substance-use correlates appear in the 50 to 64 and 65-plus groups. The biggest limitation is built into the design: self-reported associations cannot tell us why people used CBD, what products they actually took, how much they took, or whether CBD caused any of the patterns seen.
For clinicians, this paper matters because older adults are often assumed to be either cautious nonusers or simple โmedicalโ users. This dataset suggests the real-world picture is more layered. A meaningful share of older adults report CBD use, many also report cannabis use, and some of that use sits alongside mental health burden, chronic illness, or other substance-use problems. That makes routine medication reconciliation and cannabinoid history-taking more important than many standard visits currently reflect.
For lay readers, the study is useful because it pushes back on two familiar distortions. One is the idea that CBD is so benign and wellness-adjacent that it barely deserves medical discussion. The other is the opposite assumption, that any CBD use in older adults automatically signals misuse or danger. The paper supports neither simplification. It shows common use, meaningful overlap with cannabis, and enough complexity to justify careful, individualized conversation.
At a public-health level, this study also highlights a surveillance problem. Consumers may think they are taking one thing while actually taking variable or mislabeled hemp-derived products, and large surveys still do not capture dosage, frequency, product chemistry, or motivation with enough precision. In other words, older adult CBD use is becoming more visible faster than the evidence base or product oversight is catching up.
| Study Type | Cross-sectional observational analysis of a nationally representative U.S. survey |
| Population | Community-dwelling U.S. adults age 50 and older, analyzed as ages 50 to 64 and ages 65 and older |
| Exposure or Intervention | Self-reported past-year CBD or hemp product use |
| Comparator | Older adults without past-year CBD use, with additional comparison across no cannabis use, medical cannabis use, and nonmedical cannabis use |
| Primary Outcomes | Prevalence of past-year CBD use and adjusted associations between CBD use and cannabis use, chronic illness count, mental illness, and other substance-use problems |
| Sample Size or Scope | 10,560 survey respondents age 50 and older, representing nearly 119 million U.S. adults |
| Journal | Clinical Gerontologist |
| Year | 2025 |
| DOI | 10.1080/07317115.2024.2429595 |
| Funding or Conflicts | Supported by National Institute on Aging grant P30AG066614; authors reported no conflict of interest |
CBD use among older adults is common and often travels with cannabis use, but this paper does not show that CBD is treating disease, reducing medication burden, or causing the health patterns linked with it. It supports better screening and better counseling, not bigger claims.
The authors used 2022 NSDUH data to examine self-reported past-year CBD use in U.S. adults age 50 and older. They split the sample into ages 50 to 64 and ages 65 and older, then modeled how CBD use related to medical cannabis use, nonmedical cannabis use, chronic illness count, mental illness, nicotine dependence, alcohol use disorder, psychotherapeutic medication misuse, illicit drug use, and several sociodemographic variables. Importantly, this was not a study of prescribed CBD, verified product chemistry, clinical response, or longitudinal outcomes. It was a study of reported use patterns and reported health associations.
Past-year CBD use was reported by 18.3% of adults age 50 to 64 and 14.3% of adults age 65 and older. In the older group, CBD use was more common than cannabis use, which was reported by 8.0%. In adjusted models, both medical and nonmedical cannabis use were strongly associated with CBD use in both age groups, with incidence rate ratios above 4 in each group. In adults 50 to 64, CBD use was also associated with more chronic illnesses, mild and moderate to severe mental illness, and illicit drug use. In adults 65 and older, CBD use was significantly associated with disordered psychotherapeutic drug use, while physical health burden was not a significant correlate after adjustment. The paper also found lower reported CBD use among several minoritized groups relative to non-Hispanic white respondents.
This is useful but mid-tier observational evidence for prevalence and pattern recognition. Because the sample is nationally representative and large, the paper is stronger than a small convenience survey for describing how common reported CBD use is in older adults. But because it is cross-sectional and self-reported, it sits far below randomized trials for questions of efficacy or safety, and below longitudinal cohorts for questions about directionality over time.
Several caution points matter here. First, the survey cannot tell us why respondents used CBD, whether they used it for pain, sleep, anxiety, wellness, or something else. Second, it does not provide dose, frequency, route, product type, or laboratory confirmation of what was actually consumed. Third, the survey category bundled โCBD or hemp products,โ which means some respondents may have been using products containing other cannabinoids, including intoxicating hemp-derived compounds. Fourth, all exposure and health data were self-reported, so recall error, misunderstanding of product content, and social desirability bias are real concerns. Fifth, cross-sectional associations can run in multiple directions. People with more illness may seek CBD, rather than CBD being related to illness in any causal sense. Finally, because CBD use among older adults appears here as a broad consumer behavior rather than a verified pharmacologic intervention, the findings are better understood as a map of use patterns than as a map of clinical effects.
It does not show that CBD improves pain, sleep, anxiety, mood, or any chronic disease in older adults. It does not show that CBD caused the higher rates of certain mental health or substance-use problems seen in some groups. It does not show that over-the-counter CBD products were accurately labeled, contaminant-free, or chemically uniform. And it does not tell us whether CBD reduced the use of opioids, benzodiazepines, alcohol, or other drugs in this sample.
This is a good descriptive paper about a real and growing phenomenon. It tells us that reported CBD use is common in adults over 50, especially striking in those over 65, and that it frequently overlaps with cannabis use and certain markers of health complexity. It does not settle debates about benefit, substitution, or safety. Its best use is to sharpen clinical curiosity, improve patient interviewing, and keep interpretation disciplined.
๐ฌ Join the Conversation
Have a question about how this applies to your situation? Ask Dr. Caplan โ
Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? Join the forum discussion โ
Have thoughts on this? Share it:
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Was this a study of CBD treatment effectiveness?
No. It was a survey-based observational study looking at who reported using CBD and what characteristics were associated with that use.
2. How common was CBD use in this sample?
Past-year CBD use was reported by 18.3% of adults age 50 to 64 and 14.3% of adults age 65 and older.
3. Was CBD use more common than cannabis use in older seniors?
Yes, in adults 65 and older, reported CBD use was more common than reported cannabis use in this dataset.
4. Did the study prove that CBD helps older adults?
No. The design cannot tell us whether CBD was effective, ineffective, or harmful for the reasons respondents may have been using it.
5. What was the strongest association in the paper?
The most consistent finding was the strong positive association between CBD use and both medical and nonmedical cannabis use in both age groups.
6. Did the paper identify what kind of CBD products people used?
No. It did not capture detailed product formulation, dosage, route, frequency, or verified cannabinoid content.
7. Why is self-report a problem in CBD research?
Many consumers do not know exactly what is in the products they buy, so respondents may misclassify CBD, hemp, THC-containing hemp products, or mixed cannabinoid products.
8. What should clinicians do with this information?
Ask older patients specifically about CBD and hemp products, not just โcannabis,โ and clarify product type, reason for use, co-use with THC, and possible medication interactions.
9. Does the paper suggest a substitution effect away from opioids or other medications?
Not directly. The authors discuss that possibility, but this dataset does not demonstrate medication substitution.
10. What is the main takeaway for readers?
CBD use in later life is common enough to matter clinically, but the evidence here describes patterns of use, not proof of therapeutic value.