Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36367871›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

From growers to patients: Multi-stakeholder views on the use of, and access to medicinal cannabis in Australia.

Daniel Erku, Lisa-Marie Greenwood, Myfanwy Graham, Christine Mary Hallinan, Jessica G Bartschi, Elianne Renaud, Paul Scuffham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel ErkuCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8878-0317
Lisa-Marie GreenwoodResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Myfanwy GrahamAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Christine Mary HallinanDepartment of General Practice, Faculty Dentistry Medicine and Health Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jessica G BartschiAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Elianne RenaudAustralian Centre for Cannabinoid Clinical and Research Excellence, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Paul ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5931-642X
Griffith University · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUAustralian National University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient interest in the use of cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) has increased in Australia. While recent policy and legislative changes have enabled health practitioners to prescribe CBMs for their patients, many patients still struggle to access CBMs. This paper employed a thematic analysis to submissions made to a 2019 Australian government inquiry into current barriers of patient access to medical cannabis.

methodsWe identified 121 submissions from patients or family members (n = 63), government bodies (n = 5), non-government organisations (i.e., professional health bodies, charities, consumer organisations or advocacy groups; n = 25), medical cannabis and pharmaceutical industry (n = 16), and individual health professionals, academics, or research centres (n = 12). Data were coded using NVivo 12 software and thematically analysed. The findings were presented narratively using a modified Levesque's patient-centred access to care framework which includes: i) appropriateness; ii) availability and geographic accessibility; iii) acceptability; and iv) affordability.

resultsSubmissions from government agencies and professional health bodies consistently supported maintaining the current regulatory frameworks and access pathways, whereas an overwhelming majority of patients, advocacy groups and the medical cannabis industry described the current regulatory and access models as 'not fit for purpose'. These differing views seem to arise from divergent persepctives on (i) what and how much evidence is needed for policy and practice, and (ii) how patients should be given access to medical cannabis products amidst empirical uncertainty. Notwithstanding these differences, there were commonalities among some stakeholders regarding the various supply, regulatory, legislative, financial, and dispensing challenges that hindered timely access to CBMs.

conclusionsProgress in addressing the fundamental barriers that determine if and how a patient accesses and uses CBMs needs i) a 'system-level' reform that gives due consideration to the geographic disparity in access to prescribers and medical cannabis, and ii) reframing societal and health professional's views of CBMs by decoupling recreational vs medical cannabis.

Indexed as

CannabisMedical MarijuanaAustraliaDrug IndustryFamilyHumansMedical Marijuana

Identifiers

PMID36367871
PMCPMC9651563
OpenAlexW4308791808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.