ArticlePloS one2021
Elicitation of stakeholder viewpoints about medical cannabis research for pain management in critically ill ventilated patients: A Q-methodology study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine acceptability of medical cannabis research in critically ill patients.
designQ-methodology survey.
settingConvenience sample of healthcare providers and the general public were recruited at an acute care community hospital in Ontario, Canada.
participantsIn the first phase, 63 respondents provided 197 unique viewpoints in response to a topic statement about medical cannabis use in critically ill patients. Twenty-five viewpoints were selected for the q-sample. In the second phase, 99 respondents ranked these viewpoints according to an a priori quasi normal distribution ranging from +4 (most agree) to -4 (least agree). Factor analysis was combined with comments provided by survey respondents to label and describe the extracted factors.
resultsThe factor labels were hoping and caring (factor 1), pragmatic progress (factor 2), and cautious/conservative and protectionist (factor 3). Factor 1 describes a viewpoint of unequivocal support for medical cannabis research in this population with few caveats. Factor 2 describes a viewpoint of cautious support with a need to monitor for unintended adverse effects. Factor 3 describes a viewpoint of ensuring that current analgosedation techniques are optimized before exposing patients to another potentially harmful drug.
conclusionsUsing a q-methodology design, we were able to sample and describe the viewpoints that exist about medical cannabis research in critically ill patients. Three factors emerged that seemed to adequately describe the relative ranking of q-statements by the majority of respondents. Combining the distinguishing statements along with respondent comments allowed us to determine that the majority support medical cannabis research in critically ill patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.