ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025
Understanding medical cannabis use internationally: Why definitions and context matter.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cannabis and Cannabinoid-Related Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions: Global Patterns and Cross-National Analysis Based on VigiBaseCNS drugs · 2026Article
- The use of cannabis for medical reasons in the UK: Prescriptions, sources, products, and high-risk use.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- International Policy Approaches for Higher THC Cannabis Products: Are They Applicable to the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Framework?Drug and alcohol review · 2026Review
- Understanding medical cannabis use internationally: Why definitions and context matter.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo identify variation in identification of medical consumers using alternative self-reported measures and assess whether differences in these rates exist across jurisdictions with different medical policy approaches using evidence from an international study on cannabis use.
designSecondary analysis of wave 4 (2021) of the International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS) cross-sectional survey.
settingUnited States, Canada and Australia.
participants16 951 (USA 10 472; CAN 5935; AUS 544) respondents who completed the survey and reported past year cannabis use across the three jurisdictions. MEASUREMENTS: Four different medical cannabis use measures were available, and rates of each were estimated using logistic regression methods that adjusted for age, gender, education and ethnicity. Medical cannabis use measures included potentially authorized use (i.e. involving a licensed health professional recommendation, authorization or prescription), pharmaceutical use (i.e. involving a pharmaceutical-grade product), therapeutic use (i.e. to manage physical or mental health conditions) and self-identified medical cannabis use. Country-specific differences were compared and discussed in light of measure and differing cannabis policies.
findingsIn wave 4 of the ICPS, 34.0% reported any past year cannabis use, but rates of medical use differed significantly according to the specific question. Far more individuals reported therapeutic use in the past year across all countries [77.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 76.4%-78.2%] than any other measure of medical use. While just over one quarter (28.2%; 95% CI = 27.3%-29.2%) self-identified as a medical user, fewer reported being potentially authorized (22.8%; 95% CI = 22.0%-23.7%) or having a pharmaceutical prescription from a medical professional (12.3%; 95% CI = 11.6%-13.0%). Australians (27.2%; 95% CI = 23.0%-31.4%) and Americans (25.9%; 95% CI = 24.6%-27.2%) were more likely to report potentially authorized use than Canadians (17.3%; 95% CI = 16.1%-18.4%), but only Australians (27.4%; 95% CI = 23.6%-31.2%) reported high levels of prior use of a pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid.
conclusionsIn the International Cannabis Policy Study, the proportion of respondents (adjusted for demographic factors) who reported medical use varied depending on the measures used within and between countries.
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.