ReviewMedical cannabis and cannabinoids
Evaluations of State Medical Cannabis Programs in the USA: A Narrative Review.
Review in Medical cannabis and cannabinoids. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical cannabis (MC) use is increasing across the USA, with functional MC programs now operating in 38 states. While program policies and practices vary widely, little is known about whether and how states evaluate their programs. Better characterization of state MC program evaluation to date could inform states, program officials, and providers about best practices and provide a roadmap for future program evaluation. Summary: We conducted a narrative review of state MC program evaluations, including peer-reviewed literature and reports produced by independent state-based and non-state-based evaluators. Among 304 abstracts initially screened, seven evaluations met inclusion criteria. Within these evaluations, we report results according to three overarching themes: (1) evaluation characteristics, including comparison across evaluations; (2) program experience, including perceptions of providers and patients; and (3) assessment of cannabis use, including self-reported efficacy for qualifying medical conditions, patterns of medical and nonmedical cannabis use, and assessment of risk factors relevant to MC use. Additionally, we found that while goals and methods for state MC evaluations varied widely, evaluations that relied on independent, non-state entities tended to have more comprehensive and quantitatively rigorous results. Key Messages: Few states operating MC programs have completed a formal evaluation of their program. Among states that have completed an evaluation, approaches varied widely; however, common themes were also present, which may inform future state evaluation efforts. Evaluation through independent, non-state partners may provide an optimal strategy to ensure high-quality data and meaningful results.
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.