Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41593723›Full record

ArticleJournal of cannabis research2026

Post-legalization rise in German medical cannabis interest: evidence from Google trends as surrogate marker.

Michael Constantin Kirchberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2026. 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

1 author.

Michael Constantin KirchbergerDermatology Center Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany. drkirchberger@e.mail.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical cannabis legislation in Germany shifted significantly with the Medical Cannabis Act in March 2017, enabling physician prescriptions under specific conditions, and further evolved with the Cannabis Act (CanG) in April 2024, which partially decriminalized cannabis for adult non-medical use and allowed for Cannabis Social Clubs from July 2024. These reforms have prompted considerable public discussion and information-seeking. This study aimed to analyze Google search trends for medical cannabis in Germany to understand public interest nationally and regionally in response to these policy changes.

methodsGoogle Trends data for “medizinisches cannabis” (Germany, 2015–2025) were analyzed nationally using descriptive statistics and ITS regression for 2017/2024 policy impacts. Regional variations (16 states, 2015–2025) were assessed.

resultsNational search interest for “medical cannabis” markedly increased with legislative changes. Mean weekly search indices rose from 7.85 (pre-2017) to 23.79 (post-2017 Act; +203%), and further to 75.29 (post-2024 CanG; +216%). Interrupted Time Series analysis confirmed significant immediate relative increases post-2017 (135%) and post-2024 (216%), with a subsequent slight negative trend indicating attenuation after the initial peak. Significant regional disparities revealed four distinct clusters, notably Bavaria with sustained maximal interest and Bremen/Saarland showing unique temporal patterns.

conclusionsGerman public interest in “medical cannabis” is strongly influenced by policy, surging with the 2017 medical reform and 2024 Cannabis Act, indicating its mainstream emergence. Significant regional variations (e.g., Bavaria’s high query rates despite restrictive policies) reflect differing local contexts and implementation. Infodemiological monitoring is valuable for assessing policy response and identifying knowledge gaps.

Indexed as

GermanyGoogle trendsHealth policyInfodemiologyMedical cannabis

Identifiers

PMID41593723
PMCPMC12837004

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.