ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications2025
ATTITUDES AND PRACTICE PATTERNS OF CANADIAN PHYSIATRISTS REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess practice patterns and attitudes of Canadian physiatrists, given their expertise in pain management and spasticity, conditions in which medical cannabis (MC) should be considered. Design: A 24-item, survey questionnaire was sent to physiatrists across Canada. Subjects: One hundred and nine physiatrists responded. Methods: A structured web-based survey distributed to members of Canadian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Inferential statistical analysis was conducted. Results: A majority of respondents acknowledged the medicinal value of MC, with 61% of respondents feeling comfortable discussing it, whereas only 31% felt comfortable authorizing MC. Years of work experience did not impact comfort regarding discussions of MC, but those with 21+ years of experience authorized MC more frequently. A significant relationship was observed between subspecialty and MC prescribing; most prescriptions authorized for neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain and spasticity. Most respondents agreed that medical school and residency programs provided insufficient education on MC, and that governmental and institutional guidelines remained unclear. Conclusion: Addressing cannabinoids in medical school and residency is important to improve the therapeutic and counselling aspects of patient care in addressing safety and preventing misuse. With clearer guidelines and more research on MC efficacy, physiatrists will be more knowledgeable and better able to improve patient lives.
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.