Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28855796›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse : research and treatment2017

Medical Decision-Making Processes and Online Behaviors Among Cannabis Dispensary Staff.

Nicholas C Peiper, Camille Gourdet, Angélica Meinhofer, Amanda Reiman, Nicco Reggente

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse : research and treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Healthcare professionals' and budtenders' perceptions of perinatal cannabis use.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Reefer madness?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicholas C PeiperBehavioral Health and Criminal Justice Research Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Camille GourdetPublic Health Research Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Angélica MeinhoferBehavioral Health and Criminal Justice Research Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Amanda ReimanAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.
Nicco ReggenteDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

TRAINING IN DEMOGRAPHYT32HD007338 · NICHD · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI ANDREW D. FOSTER · 1987 to 2026
$7.0M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost cannabis patients engage with dispensary staff, like budtenders, for medical advice on cannabis. Yet, little is known about these interactions and how the characteristics of budtenders affect these interactions. This study investigated demographics, workplace characteristics, medical decision-making, and online behaviors among a sample of budtenders.

methodsBetween June and September 2016, a cross-sectional Internet survey was administered to budtenders in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles. A total of 158 budtenders fully responded to the survey. A series of comparisons were conducted to determine differences between trained and untrained budtenders.

resultsAmong the 158 budtenders, 56% had received formal training to become a budtender. Several demographic differences were found between trained and untrained budtenders. For workplace characteristics, trained budtenders were more likely to report budtender as their primary job (74% vs 53%), practice more than 5 years (34% vs 11%), and receive sales commission (57% vs 16%). Trained budtenders were significantly less likely to perceive medical decision-making as very important (47% vs 68%) and have a patient-centered philosophy (77% vs 89%). Although trained budtenders had significantly lower Internet usage, they were significantly more likely to exchange information with patients through e-mail (58% vs 39%), text message (46% vs 30%), mobile app (33% vs 11%), video call (26% vs 3%), and social media (51% vs 23%).

conclusionsBudtenders who are formally trained exhibit significantly different patterns of interaction with medical cannabis patients. Future studies will use multivariate methods to better determine which factors independently influence interactions and how budtenders operate after the introduction of regulations under the newly passed Proposition 64 that permits recreational cannabis use in California.

Indexed as

budtenderCannabisdispensaryInternetmarijuanamedical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID28855796
PMCPMC5570116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.