ArticleHarm reduction journal2022
The quality of health information provided on web sites selling cannabis to consumers in Canada is poor.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Credibility and Reliability of Online Information on Cannabidiol (CBD) for Epilepsy Treatment in Poland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dietary and herbal supplement consumer health information for pain: A cross-sectional survey and quality assessment of online content.Integrative medicine research · 2023Article
- Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceptions on Cannabis Among Older Adults Aged 65 and Older: A cross-sectional Survey.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCannabis is used by millions of people for both medical and recreational purposes, and this use is even greater in jurisdictions where it is legalized, such as Canada. Online cannabis vendors have gained popularity for purchasing cannabis due to easy access and convenience to consumers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of health information provided by web sites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers and to further identify trends in the information provided.
methodsSix different searches were conducted on Google.ca, and the first 40 webpages of each search were screened for eligibility. A total of 33 unique web sites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers were identified and included. The DISCERN instrument, which consists of 16 questions divided into three sections, was used to evaluate the quality of cannabis-related health information on these web sites.
resultsAcross the 33 web sites, the average of the summed DISCERN scores was 36.83 (SD = 9.73) out of 75, and the mean score for the overall quality of the publication (DISCERN question 16) was 2.41 (SD = 0.71) out of 5. Many of these web sites failed to discuss uncertainties in research evidence on cannabis, the impact of cannabis use on quality of life, alternatives to cannabis use, risks associated with cannabis use, and lacked references to support claims on effects and benefits of use.
conclusionOur findings indicate that the quality of cannabis-related health information provided by online vendors is poor. Healthcare providers should be aware that patients may use these web sites as primary sources of information and appropriately caution patients while directing them to high-quality sources. Future research should serve to replicate this study in other jurisdictions and assess the accuracy of information provided by online cannabis vendors, as this was outside the scope of the DISCERN instrument.
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.