ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Consumer perspectives of accessing medicinal cannabis treatment from cannabis clinics versus generalist health settings in Australia.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine consumer perspectives regarding medicinal cannabis treatment provided to patients attending generalist health settings (GHS) compared to those attending medicinal cannabis clinics (MCC).
methodsAn anonymous online survey, with convenience sampling of adults self-reporting prescribed medicinal cannabis in the preceding 12 months. Outcomes included participant characteristics, indications and patterns of cannabis use, consumer satisfaction.
resultsMost participants (1899/2394, 79.3%) accessed treatment from MCC. Compared to generalist settings, MCC participants were younger (3.5 years, 95%CI: -4.7, -2.2), less likely to be prescribed oral products (OR = 0.4, 0.4-0.5), and had higher rates of employment (OR = 2.1, 1.8-2.5) and cannabis use disorder (OR = 1.5, 1.2-1.8). MCC participants were less likely to seek treatment for chronic pain (OR = 0.7, 0.6-0.8), but more likely for mental health conditions (OR = 1.6, 1.3-2.0). MCC participants had lower satisfaction levels regarding consultation duration (OR = 0.8, 0.7-0.9), information about potential harms and benefits (OR = 0.7, 0.6-0.9), use of other treatment approaches (OR = 0.5, 0.4-0.6) and treatment costs (OR = 0.6, 0.5-0.7).
conclusionWe identified differences in the profile of patients, type of treatment provided between service settings, and there were higher levels of satisfaction amongst consumers accessing treatment in GHS settings. Further research is required to examine other dimensions of quality and appropriateness of care provided in MCC.
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.