ArticleBMJ open2024
Facilitators of and barriers to healthcare providers' adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Implementation and evaluation of a knowledge translation process to optimize the adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use by practitioners working with youth in Quebec: a mixed-methods study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Mixed-methods study on professionals' attitudes toward harm reduction in cannabis use and the development of a knowledge translation plan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Facilitators of and obstacles to practitioners' adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use: a scoping review.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe high prevalence of cannabis use and the potential for negative effects indicate the need for effective prevention strategies and treatment of people who use cannabis. Studies show that harm reduction (HR) in cannabis use is effective in minimising the harmful consequences of the substance. However, health professionals often misunderstand it and resist its adoption due to various obstacles. To our knowledge, there has been no review of the scientific literature on the factors that facilitate or hinder practitioners' adoption of HR in cannabis use. To fill this gap, we aim to identify, through a scoping review, facilitators and barriers to healthcare providers' adoption of HR in cannabis use in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our methodology will be guided by the six-step model initially proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). The search strategy will be executed on different databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Sociological Abstracts, Érudit, BASE, Google Web and Google Scholar) and will cover articles published between 1990 and October 2022. Empirical studies published in French or English in an OECD country and identifying factors that facilitate or hinder healthcare providers' adoption of HR in cannabis use, will be included. Reference lists of the selected articles as well as relevant systematic reviews will be scanned to identify any missed publications by the electronic searches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through various activities (eg, publication in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, webinars and knowledge translation activities). The results will also allow us to conduct a future study aiming to develop and implement a knowledge translation process among healthcare practitioners working with youth in Quebec in order to enhance their adoption of HR in cannabis use.
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.