Self-Efficacy in Researching and Obtaining Medical Cannabis by Patients With Chronic Conditions

Perceptions and engagement of patients with chronic conditions on the use of medical cannabis: a scoping review

CONTEXT

Studies generally focus on one type of chronic condition and the effect of medical cannabis (MC) on symptoms; little is known about the perceptions and engagement of patients living with chronic conditions regarding the use of MC.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to explore: (1) what are the dimensions addressed in studies on MC that deal with patients' perceptions of MC? and (2) how have patients been engaged in developing these studies and their methodologies? Through these objectives, we have identified areas for improving future research.

METHODS

We searched five databases and applied exclusion criteria to select relevant articles. A thematic analysis approach was used to identify the main themes: (1) reasons to use, to stop using or not to use MC, (2) effects of MC on patients themselves and empowerment, (3) perspective and knowledge about MC, and (4) discussion with relatives and healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Of 53 articles, the main interest when assessing the perceptions of MC is to identify the reasons to use MC (n = 39), while few articles focused on the reasons leading to stop using MC (n = 13). The majority (85%) appraise the effects of MC as perceived by patients. Less than one third assessed patients' sense of empowerment. Articles determining the beliefs surrounding and knowledge of MC (n = 41) generally addressed the concerns about or the comfort level with respect to using MC. Only six articles assessed patients' stereotypes regarding cannabis. Concerns about stigma constituted the main topic while assessing relationships with relatives. Some articles included patients in the research, but none of them had co-created the data collection tool with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review outlined that few studies considered chronic diseases as a whole and that few patients are involved in the co-construction of data collection tools as well. There is an evidence gap concerning the results in terms of methodological quality when engaging patients in their design. Future research should evaluate why cannabis' effectiveness varies between patients, and how access affects the decision to use or not to use MC, particularly regarding the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Future research should consider age and gender while assessing perceptions and should take into consideration the legislation status of cannabis as these factors could in fact shape perception. To reduce stigma and stereotypes about MC users, better quality and accessible information on MC should be disseminated.

The role of stigma in cannabis use disclosure: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Although cannabis use incidence, societal acceptance, and legislation all trend positively, cannabis remains federally illegal in the USA. Prior studies have revealed that patients are reluctant to disclose their cannabis use history in the healthcare system, which can negatively impact patient care. This study reports the frequency of cannabis use disclosure with special considerations for stigmatization. To better understand the limitations, providers face in providing collaborative, comprehensive, and informed care, this study evaluated four domains of stigma: perceived, anticipated, enacted, and internalized.

METHODS

This study used a descriptive exploratory design. Data collection occurred using an anonymous, online national survey with a convenience sample in the USA. Recruitment relied on electronic media and occurred between July and December 2022. Participants were adults older than 21 years and self-identified as having used cannabis and accessed the healthcare system within the last five years. The survey measured demographic characteristics, cannabis use, and disclosure patterns. Stigma was measured using the Stigma Use Stigma Mechanism Scale (SU-SMS) and Substance Abuse Use Self-Stigma Scale (SASSS) with language modifications for cannabis. Ordinal logistic regression models were performed to evaluate associations between the frequency of cannabis use disclosure patterns and each stigma category. Associations were assessed using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Data were available for 249 respondents. Most participants (57.1%) reported initiating a conversation about cannabis with their healthcare provider; 27.8% of the time, cannabis is never discussed, and healthcare providers initiate only 15.1% of related discussions. Anticipated stigma [95% CI 1.045-1.164] and total stigma [95% CI 1.001-1.039] had statistically significant associations with nondisclosure. Annual household income (p = .04), chronicity of cannabis use (p = .03), frequency of cannabis use (p = .02), and a known amount of CBD in products consumed (p = .01) had statistically significant associations with the frequency of cannabis use disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who use cannabis experience stigmatization in the healthcare setting that may limit disclosure of cannabis use history. Future studies would be well served to explore anticipated stigma more deeply. Healthcare providers should be knowledgeable to lead such conversations relating to cannabis while maintaining an unbiased perspective.

Attitudes Toward the Use of Medical Cannabis and the Perceived Efficacy, Side-effects and Risks: A Survey of Patients, Nurses and Physicians

Gaps between physician and patient perceptions may lead to misunderstandings and mismanage of treatment. There are sparse data about the differences in opinions toward medical cannabis (MC) between patients and health professionals. The aim of this study was to examine the attitudes toward MC, its perceived efficacy, side effects and risk of dependency, among patients, nurses and physicians. A cross-sectional study of samples of 430 patients, 65 nurses and 65 physicians in two large medical centers in Israel. Questionnaires were administered on attitudes, perceived efficacy, side-effects and perceived risks of dependency. Compared with nurses and physicians, patients who were using MC had the most positive attitudes toward MC (p < .001). Younger age, high school education, being Jewish and ever using MC, were associated with more positive attitudes toward MC among patients (p < .001). Among nurses and physicians, having an oncology specialty predicted more positive attitudes toward MC. Physicians had a less positive attitude toward MC compared to nurses (p < .01). Our study provides evidence that physicians are less positive in their views toward MC compared to nurses and patients. More information and awareness to MC may reduce the gap in perceptions between physicians and patients.

Description and Disposition of Patients With Cancer Accessing a Novel, Pharmacist-Led Cannabis Consultation Service

PURPOSE

The Cannabis Consultation Service (CCS) is an innovative pharmacist-led resource at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre. Its mandate is to provide education and guide patients through access and appropriate use of high-quality plant-derived cannabinoids (PDCs). Our objective was to describe the CCS, explain its processes, and characterize patient disposition with respect to use of PDCs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients referred to the CCS from July 13, 2020, to March 05, 2021. We used descriptive statistics to report on the patient population and service metrics.

RESULTS

During the 34-week period, 96 patients accessed the CCS (median age, 61 years). The top reasons for CCS consultation were management of cancer pain, insomnia, and general interest. Medical cannabis was supported as an option in 44/96 patients. Reasons for not supporting PDC use included lack of indication, potential drug interaction/contraindication, or requiring treatment with first-line therapy. Of the 40 patients requiring a medical document, 22 initiated therapy. The most common product used was a 2:50 THC:CBD (Tetrahydrocannabinol:Cannabidiol) cannabis oil. At the date of last contact, few patients remained on therapy because of lack of benefit, patient choice, and/or hesitancy.

CONCLUSION

Despite patients with cancer having interest in seeking PDCs for symptom management, only a few initiated and continued therapy. Pharmacists have an opportunity to advise patients and the oncology team on the risks and benefits of PDCs. These results can be used to support the development of medical cannabis programs by oncology centers and focus future research priorities.

Patient Experience and Perspective on Medical Cannabis as an Alternative for Musculoskeletal Pain Management

Introduction:

The current rate of opioid prescription is disquieting because of their high abuse potential, adverse effects, and thousands of overdose deaths. This situation imposes urgency in seeking alternatives for adequate pain management. From this perspective, this study aimed to evaluate the experience and the perceived analgesic efficacy of medical cannabis in managing the pain associated with musculoskeletal conditions.

Methods:

A 28-question survey was distributed to patients at a major medical cannabis center in Puerto Rico for 2 months. Demographics, medical history, cannabis usage, cannabis use perspective, and analgesic efficacy were assessed in the questionnaire.

Results:

One hundred eighty-four patients completed our survey. The majority (67%) were males, and the participants' average age was 38 years. This study showed an average pain reduction score of 4.02 points on the Numeric Rating Scale among all the participants. Those with musculoskeletal conditions reported a notable average pain reduction score of 4.47 points. In addition, 89% of the participants considered medical cannabis to be more effective than narcotics for adequate pain management.

Conclusions:

This study demonstrated that the use of medical cannabis among patients with musculoskeletal conditions effectively reduced pain levels based on their Numeric Rating Scale reported scores.

A Failure to Guide: Patient Experiences within a State-Run Cannabis Program in Pennsylvania, United States

INTRODUCTION

Medical cannabis has been available for purchase in dispensaries in Pennsylvania, United States since April 2018. Patients wanting to access medical cannabis must receive certification from physicians for a limited number of physical and psychological conditions. Despite increasing numbers of patients using cannabis in the United States, little is known about the patient experience during certification and entry into state-regulated cannabis programs and how and if they are guided by health care professionals and dispensary staff. Through focus group discussions, we sought to capture patient perspectives of certification, cannabis acquisition and cannabis use.

METHODS

Twenty-seven Pennsylvania participants took part in 7 virtual focus groups from June to July 2020. Participants were recruited statewide from the community, medical settings, and dispensaries.

RESULTS

Focus group results indicate that while the medical cannabis program is functional, policymakers and the medical community have failed to meaningfully integrate cannabis into the health care system. Participants expressed frustration around two central themes: there was no overarching education about medical use of cannabis and there was little consistency and availability for people once they found a suitable product, resulting in inadequate symptom relief and exorbitant out of pocket costs to pursue cannabis use as an adjuvant therapeutic. Participants noted a siloed experience between the certification process, accessing dispensaries, and receiving ongoing medical care. The lack of integrated care required high levels of self-reliance and experimentation with medical cannabis for participants.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that cannabis be better integrated into medical care for patients with qualifying conditions.

Chronic Pain Clinical and Prescriptive Practices in the Cannabis Era

BACKGROUND

To explore how health care providers in the United States are adapting clinical recommendations and prescriptive practices in response to patient use of medical cannabis (MC) for chronic pain symptoms.

DESIGN

Literature searches queried MeSH/Subject terms "chronic pain," "clinician," "cannabis," and Boolean text words "practice" and "analgesics" in EBSCOHost, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus, published 2010-2021 in the United States. Twenty-one primary, peer-reviewed studies met criteria.

METHODS

Studies are synthesized under major headings: recommending MC for chronic pain; MC and prescription opioids; and harm reduction of MC.

RESULTS

MC is increasingly utilized by patients for chronic pain symptoms. Clinical recommendations for or against MC are influenced by scopes of practice, state or federal laws, institutional policies, education, potential patient harm (or indirect harm of others), and perceived confidence. Epidemiologic and cohort studies show downward trajectories of opioid prescribing and consumption in states with legal cannabis. However, clinicians' recommendations and prescription practices are nonuniform. Impacts of cannabis laws are clear between nongovernmental and governmental institutions. Strategies addressing MC and opioid use include frequent visits, and, to reduce harm, suggesting alternative therapies and treating substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

MC use for chronic pain is increasing with cannabis legalization. Provider practices are heterogenous, demonstrating a balance of treating chronic pain using available evidence, while being aware of potential harms associated with MC and opioids.