Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41137114›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Consulting people who use cannabis to plan a regulatory trial on non-medical cannabis sales in pharmacies.

Anna Irina Schibli, F H, N N, A S, Kathrin Bieri, Kevin Selby, Marie-Anne Durand, Reto Auer, Beatrice Metry

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna Irina SchibliInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern, 3012, Switzerland. anna.schibli@unibe.ch.
F HAdvisory group co-authors, anonymised at their request, Bern, Switzerland.
N NAdvisory group co-authors, anonymised at their request, Bern, Switzerland.
A SAdvisory group co-authors, anonymised at their request, Bern, Switzerland.
Kathrin BieriDepartment of Clinical Research (DCR), Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Kevin SelbyUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Ambulatory Care, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Marie-Anne DurandUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Ambulatory Care, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Reto AuerInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.
Beatrice MetryInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 32003B_214832/1Tobacco Control Fund (TCF) 326.5-2/60
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwitzerland has taken a different path to cannabis regulation than other countries. A 2021 law allows regulatory experiments on the production and sale of cannabis for non-medical purposes. The research team planned a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test how selling cannabis in pharmacies affects users' health and consumption habits. The study intervention also included counselling on risk reduction, such as smoking cessation. The research team aimed to incorporate the perspectives of people who use cannabis into the study design, despite challenges related to stigma and legal constraints.

methodsWhen planning the RCT, the research team mandated an external researcher to form an advisory group with regular users of non-medical cannabis. This researcher used convenience sampling (including snowball sampling) to recruit people who use cannabis, considering age, self-reported gender and cannabis use frequency. She conducted an individual interview, followed by iterative group discussions. She summarised the results into reports and sent them to the research group, who considered the results during study planning and formulated topics to be discussed in the next advisory group meeting.

resultsIn a two- and half-year long process (November 2021 to March 2024), eight people who use cannabis provided iterative feedback that informed the development of the study intervention. Based on their feedback, the research team expanded the product selection to include cannabis resin alongside cannabis flowers. The group's feedback also led the research team to make several changes to the sales process in pharmacies. While the members of the advisory group expressed that much of their feedback had been considered, they noted that some key aspects - such as product pricing - had not been implemented. Legal and political constraints limited the research team's ability to implement advisory group feedback.

conclusionsThis experience showed that gathering user input is feasible, even in highly regulated, stigmatized contexts. Including the perspectives of people who use cannabis in the trial set-up allowed the research team to adapt the study intervention. Where they could not adapt the study intervention, it helped them prepare for possible reactions from future study participants and disseminate their findings to other stakeholders. Future research should test the feasibility and benefits of such activities throughout all research stages.

Indexed as

Advisory groupCannabis regulationConsultation exercisePatient and Public Involvement (PPI)

Identifiers

PMID41137114
PMCPMC12553168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.