ArticleBMC public health2025
Detecting and understanding potential stigma among medical cannabis users in Germany.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cannabis, Religion, and Trust in the Medical Profession: A Cross-Religious Study of Patients' Attitudes Toward Medical and Recreational Use in Northern Israel.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Factors associated with different cannabis supply methods: results from the French 2017 ESCAPAD and Health Barometer surveys.Journal of cannabis research · 2026Article
- Attitudes and expectations of primary care physicians regarding recreational cannabis legalization in Germany: a pre-implementation survey.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- "It's legal, now what?" development, implementation, and evaluation of interdisciplinary cannabis education for healthcare trainees.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- Detecting and understanding potential stigma among medical cannabis users in Germany.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its increasing prevalence among the public, cannabis use is still perceived as deviant behavior and consequently stigmatized. However, there remains a paucity of understanding regarding the impact of this stigma on patients employing cannabis for therapeutic purposes. This qualitative research endeavored to explore the stigma experiences of medical cannabis (MC) users in Germany, aiming to discern challenges that may impede their daily lives and healthcare access. The primary objective of this study was to identify instances of stigma associated with MC usage across various spheres.
methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 15 individuals prescribed MC across diverse regions and occupational backgrounds in Germany. Interviews explored personal experiences with MC use, interactions with healthcare professionals, and stigma-related challenges. Data collection adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Transcribed interviews underwent systematic qualitative content analysis using MAXQDA software, with coding developed iteratively through researcher discussions. Communicative validation and inter-coder comparison enhanced analytical robustness.
resultsDespite participants exhibiting a positive attitude towards the therapeutic effects and benefits of MC, stereotypes and prejudices persist. Participants highlighted the role of media portrayals and a lack of public awareness as central barriers to broader societal acceptance. Personal experiences with MC were marked by improved quality of life but also internalised stigma and external challenges, including interactions with law enforcement and difficulties with healthcare access.
conclusionThis qualitative study suggests that the utilisation of MC remains inadequately normalised in Germany. Our findings indicate that MC users experience both substantial benefits and persistent challenges, with stigma remaining a key issue. While participants reported improvements in quality of life, barriers such as bureaucratic hurdles and knowledge gaps among healthcare professionals hinder access to appropriate care. The findings underscore the imperative for enhanced education among healthcare professionals.
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.