ArticleThe American journal on addictions2025
Patient-provider interactions about cannabis for therapeutic purposes vary as a function of provider type: A pilot study.
Article in The American journal on addictions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesLimited evidence guides the efficacy and safety of cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP). Healthcare providers lack requisite knowledge to advise and support patients. This study aimed to describe and compare several aspects of initial CTP interactions across different provider types.
methodsAdult cannabis consumers (N = 507) from the United States completed an anonymous online survey about their initial CTP interaction with their healthcare provider. Providers were categorized into four groups (Mental Health [MH], Family Medicine [FM], Medical Clinics [MC], and Other Specialty [OS]). Analyses compared several aspects of the interaction (e.g., risk mitigation, recommendations, satisfaction/confidence) across groups.
resultsLess than half of the sample reported discussion of cannabis risks (44.0%) or follow-ups at subsequent visits (46.7%). Recommendations (where to obtain, consumption method, dose, frequency, and authorization) were uncommon (9.7%-25.2%). While the MH group reported the highest rates of risk mitigation behaviors, regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and cannabis characteristics were largely nonsignificant. For recommendations, the MC group was more likely than the MH group to report receiving all recommendations (p < .05). Younger age and greater cannabis-related problems increased likelihood of risk mitigation and recommendations. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsCTP interactions focused on risk but generally lacked comprehensive recommendations that could potentially promote safe use. Data from provider perspectives could support the need for CTP guidelines and develop training for healthcare providers to promote safe CTP practices. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: For the first time, this study explored several aspects of CTP interactions and compared experiences across a variety of providers.
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.