9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of medical students’ and professionals’ attitudes and knowledge regarding medical cannabis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Recently, the renewed global interest in cannabis’ therapeutic properties has resulted in shifting attitudes and legislative policies worldwide. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the existing literature on medical professionals’ and students’ attitudes and knowledge regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) to assess any relevant and significant trends.

          Methods

          This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, a literature search was performed to identify studies pertaining to healthcare professionals’ and medical students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding MC. There were no search limits on the year of publication; however, studies without primary data (e.g., abstracts, systematic reviews, meta-analyses) and non-English language papers were excluded. Studies were coded according to the following research questions: (1) Do respondents believe that cannabis should be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational purposes)? (2) Are respondents confident in their level of knowledge regarding cannabis’ clinical applications? (3) Are respondents convinced of cannabis’ therapeutic potential? 4) What current gaps in knowledge exist, and how can the medical community become better informed about cannabis’ therapeutic uses? and (5) Are there significant differences between the knowledge and opinions of healthcare students versus healthcare professionals with respect to any of the aforementioned queries? Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between medical students and medical professionals, and Pearson’s bivariate correlations were used to analyze associations between survey responses and year of publication—as a proxy measurement to assess change over time.

          Results

          Out of the 741 items retrieved, 40 studies published between 1971 and 2019 were included in the final analyses. In an evaluation of 21 qualified studies (8016 respondents), 49.9% of all respondents favored legalization (SD = 25.7, range: 16–97%). A correlational analysis between the percentage of survey respondents who support MC legalization and year of publication suggests that both medical students’ and professionals’ support for MC legalization has increased from 1991 to 2019 ( r(19) = .44, p = .045). Moreover, medical professionals favor the legalization of MC at a significantly higher rate than students (52% vs. 42%, respectively; χ 2 (1, N = 9019) = 50.72 p < .001). Also, respondents consistently report a strong desire for more education about MC and a substantial concern regarding MC’s potential to cause dependence and addiction. Pearson’s correlations between year of publication and survey responses for both of these queried variables suggest minimal changes within the last decade (2011–2019 for addiction and dependence, 2012-2019 for additional education; r(13) = − .10, p = .713 and r(12) = − .12, p = .678, respectively).

          Conclusion

          The finding that both medical students’ and professionals’ acceptance of MC has significantly increased in recent decades—in conjunction with their consistent, strong desire for more educational material—suggests that the medical community should prioritize the development of MC educational programs. MC is far more likely to succeed as a safe and viable therapy if the medical professionals who administer it are well-trained and confident regarding its clinical effects. Limitations include a lack of covariate-based analyses and the exclusion of studies published after the literature search was performed (June 2019). Future research should analyze studies published post-2019 to draw temporal comparisons and should investigate the effect of numerous covariates (e.g., gender, religiosity, prior cannabis use) as newer studies gather data on these factors [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020204382].

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

          People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Medicinal Cannabis: History, Pharmacology, And Implications for the Acute Care Setting.

            The authors review the historical use of medicinal cannabis and discuss the agent's pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, select evidence on medicinal uses, and the implications of evolving regulations on the acute care hospital setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Colorado family physicians' attitudes toward medical marijuana.

              Over the last decade, the use of medical marijuana has expanded dramatically; it is now permitted in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Our study of family physicians in Colorado is the first to gather information about physician attitudes toward this evolving practice. We distributed an anonymous web-based electronic survey to the 1727 members of the Colorado Academy of Family Physicians' listserv. Items included individual and practice characteristics as well as experience with and attitudes toward medical marijuana. Five hundred twenty family physicians responded (30% response rate). Of these, 46% did not support physicians recommending medical marijuana; only 19% thought that physicians should recommend it. A minority thought that marijuana conferred significant benefits to physical (27%) and mental (15%) health. Most agreed that marijuana poses serious mental (64%) and physical (61%) health risks. Eighty-one percent agreed that physicians should have formal training before recommending medical marijuana, and 92% agreed that continuing medical education about medical marijuana should be available to family physicians. Despite a high prevalence of use in Colorado, most family physicians are not convinced of marijuana's health benefits and believe its use carries risks. Nearly all agreed on the need for further medical education about medical marijuana.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jweisman@pitzer.edu
                Journal
                J Cannabis Res
                J Cannabis Res
                Journal of Cannabis Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                2522-5782
                12 October 2021
                12 October 2021
                2021
                : 3
                : 47
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.418658.6, ISNI 0000 0000 9271 7703, Pitzer College, ; Claremont, CA USA
                [2 ]MCR Labs, LLC, Framingham, MA USA
                [3 ]Boston Child Study Center, Los Angeles, CA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7332-7686
                Article
                100
                10.1186/s42238-021-00100-1
                8507207
                34641976
                88e3c2ee-121f-464b-9452-bee49ce562e8
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 3 November 2020
                : 30 August 2021
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                medical cannabis,cannabis policy,international comparisons,medical students,medical professionals,attitudes

                Comments

                Comment on this article