ArticleDiscover mental health2025
Psychiatrists' opinions about non-medicalization of cannabis use disorder in Iran.
Article in Discover mental health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCannabis Use Disorder (CUD) is a significant challenge in public health and treatment policy. While medicalization has facilitated greater access to treatment services, it may also lead to dependency on pharmacological treatments and increased unnecessary healthcare costs. This study aimed to explore psychiatrists' perspectives on the demedicalization of CUD.
methodsThis qualitative study employed a phenomenological approach and was conducted in Iran. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 psychiatrists experienced in the field of addiction. The qualitative data were analyzed using inductive content analysis, by the Graneheim and Lundman approach.
resultsFour main themes obtained from the interviews: "Advantages of Demedicalization", "Disadvantages of Demedicalization", "Social and Cultural Impacts", and "Policy Making and Suggested Interventions". Key perceived benefits included reducing social stigma, enhancing patient empowerment, reducing dependency on pharmacological treatments, and addressing the socio-economic and psychological roots of cannabis use. The main reported disadvantages included increasing treatment challenges and exacerbation of social damages. Regarding sociocultural effects, participants emphasized improved social interactions and changes in cultural attitudes. In terms of policy making and interventions, the psychiatrists recommended modifying legal approaches, adopting a comprehensive and multifaceted treatment model, and preventing the dangerous normalization of cannabis use.
conclusionThe psychiatrists emphasized that the demedicalization of CUD could offer potential benefits, such as reducing social stigma and improving social acceptance, while they also highlighted some potential risks. These insights may inform future policies and practices regarding CUD.
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.