Knowledge about and attitudes towards medical cannabis among Austrian university students

BackgroundThe relevance of medical cannabis (MC) increases; and, educating those who are at the forefront of patient care is imperative. Yet, research on medical students’ expertise and opinions is still scarce.ObjectiveThis study set out to evaluate Austrian medical students’ knowledge about and attitudes towards MC and compare them with other academic disciplines. Additionally, gender was controlled for.MethodsAn online survey was conducted with N = 404 students enrolled in (1) medical studies, (2) studies with a medical background and (3) studies without a medical background.ResultsIn contrast to non-medical students, 64 % of medical students said they learnt about MC at the university. Although students were confident about their knowledge, they struggled to differentiate between CBD and THC. Chronic pain, oncological diseases and palliative care were the most frequently cited indications, psychiatric indications, however, were mentioned less often. Medical students were more reserved in their attitudes towards increasing medical usage and legalizing cannabis than the two other groups. Also, they were more skeptical about whether physicians should be allowed to prescribe MC and whether they should be obliged to offer it. Males showed more confidence regarding cannabis knowledge and were more favorable of legalizing and prescribing cannabis; females perceived cannabis as more physically addictive and as a gate-way drug.ConclusionsConsidering that beliefs and attitudes shape behavior, it is expected that future health care professionals will struggle with recommending cannabis for medical treatment. A coordinated approach for medical training is needed to ensure high standard medical care.     

Preliminary assessment of medical cannabis consumption by cancer survivors

ObjectivesTo assess the motivation of cancer survivors to consume medical cannabis and to assess the patterns of use, perceived efficacy, as well as side and adverse effects.MethodsCross-sectional survey among 190 Israeli cancer survivors who were licensed to use medical cannabis in a single institution. In addition to demographic information, the questionnaire examined patterns of use (including dosage, type of cannabis and way of administration), motivation for medical cannabis consumption, perceived efficacy, adverse and side effects, motivation for ceasing cannabis consumption, and tobacco smoking.ResultsThe mean monthly dosage of cannabis consumed was 42.4 grams; 95.8% of respondents reported not consuming cannabis regularly before being diagnosed with cancer; the most common way of administration was smoking, and most of the participants reported taking cannabis throughout the day. The most common symptoms for which participants took medical cannabis were pain (n = 169, 88.9%), sleeping disorder (n = 144, 75.8%) and anxiety (n = 79, 41.6%). Twenty patients (10.5%) reported on mild side (or adverse) effects.ConclusionsThis study indicates that cancer survivors may indeed consume cannabis for symptom relief, and not merely for recreational purposes. Although our findings point to perceived safety and efficacy of medical cannabis for cancer survivors, more research is needed to study the adequate role that cannabis may have for treating symptoms associated with cancer survivorship.     

Toward medical cannabis education in Israel

ObjectivesTo assess knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding medical cannabis among Israeli medical, nursing, social work and other health related students as well as to outline the formation of an instrument for standardized data collection on these topics.MethodsAn invitation to participate with a link for the online survey was sent to all students pursuing a degree in medicine, nursing, social work, and other health disciplines in the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. The instrument included 32 items that measured knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding medical cannabis. In addition, demographic data were collected and participants were asked about the frequency of medical or recreational cannabis use.ResultsAmong the 763 participants, 596 were females (78 %), and the mean age was 25.8 years. While the reported personal use of medical cannabis was minimal (1.9 %), cannabis use for recreational purposes was relatively common (54.0 %). The vast majority believed that medical cannabis holds significant health benefits but expressed concerns regarding potential risks of cannabis use. Additionally, the vast majority of students felt unprepared to answer patients' questions about medical cannabis and expressed a desire to receive more training. Several significant differences between the different academic disciplines were observed.ConclusionsIn light of current regulatory and scientific developments, it is apparent that students of health professions will need a greater level of understanding of medical cannabis than previous generations of students. This study emphasizes the ample need for more knowledge and formal education to students of health and related professions.     

Association of Cannabis Use and At-Risk Alcohol Use With Intimate Partner Violence in an Urban ED Sample

IntroductionUrban ED patients have elevated rates of substance use and intimate partner violence. The purpose of this study is to describe the risk profiles for intimate partner violence among urban ED patients who report at-risk alcohol use only, cannabis use only, or both types of substance use.MethodsCross-sectional survey data were collected from study participants (N = 1037; 53% female; ages 18-50) following informed consent. We measured participants’ past-year at-risk drinking (women/men who had 4+/5+ drinks in a day), cannabis use, psychosocial and demographic characteristics, and past-year physical intimate partner violence (assessed with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale). We used bivariate analysis to assess whether rates of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization differed by type of substance use behavior. Multivariate logistic regression models were estimated for each intimate partner violence outcome. All analyses were stratified by gender.ResultsRates of intimate partner violence differed significantly by type of substance use behavior and were highest among those who reported both at-risk drinking and cannabis use. Multivariate analysis showed that women who reported at-risk drinking only, cannabis use only, or both types of substance use had increased odds for intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization compared with women who reported neither type of substance use. Men’s at-risk drinking and cannabis use were not associated with elevated odds of intimate partner violence perpetration or victimization.DiscussionBrief screening of patients’ at-risk drinking and cannabis use behaviors may help identify those at greater risk for intimate partner violence and those in need of referral to treatment.     

Russian Federation medical student knowledge,attitudes and beliefs toward medical cannabis

ObjectivesTo assess medical student knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about cannabis use for medical conditions in Russia where it is prohibited.MethodsThis study uses data collected from 463 Russian origin medical students. Pearson Chi-square test for categorical variables was used to determine whether student knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of medical cannabis (MC) are affected by gender and religiosity.ResultsOverall, Russian university medical students tend to reflect negative attitudes and beliefs toward MC. Female students were more inclined to recommend MC for patient treatment and its legalization; and, believe it is not addictive and does not pose physical or mental health risk. Students who support MC use believe it has treatment benefits, support additional research as well as policy change for its legalization. Secular, more than religious, students report more positive attitudes toward MC use. About 34% of the students indicate they have no knowledge about cannabis use for medical conditions; and, nearly half report feel they are able to answer patient questions about its use for medical condition if such a situation were to exist.ConclusionsThis study is the first in Russia to examine medical students’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward MC. Results evidence the majority of survey respondents do not support cannabis legalization for any purpose – medical or recreational. They report a dearth of knowledge about the substance and recommend additional evidence-based research and education to enhance their knowledge about its use. The present study has value in terms of providing usable information for possible curriculum development and education purposes as well as policy change about cannabis use for medical conditions in Russia.     

Cannabis use among patients with cutaneous lymphoma: A cross-sectional survey

ObjectivesTo evaluate patterns of cannabis use in patients with cutaneous lymphoma (CL), as well as the association between cannabis use and itch specifically.DesignCross-sectional survey created in partnership with the Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation (CLF).SettingThe online survey was distributed electronically via email to the CLF listserv and links posted to social media over a 2-week period.Main outcome measuresRespondents were classified as current cannabis users, prior users, and never users. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess itching severity, improvement of itch, and interest in learning about cannabis.ResultsA total of 119 patient responses (61% female, mean age 59 y) were included in analysis. The majority had mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome (74%; 88/119) and early stage (IA-IIA) disease (56%; 48/86). Mean VAS itch score was 3.2 + 2.8 for the cohort. Over half (55%; 60/110) reported ever having used cannabis, with 22% (24/110) endorsing current cannabis use. Common methods of cannabis use were smoking (54%) and vaporizing (46%). 25% (6/24) of current users reported using cannabis specifically to treat itch; these respondents noted that cannabis resulted in moderate improvement of itching (mean 6.6/10). There was strong interest in learning more about cannabis and cancer, and most desired this information from their CL doctor/nurse.ConclusionsCannabis use is common among patients with CL, and patients report improvement of itching as a result of using cannabis. Further studies are needed to elucidate the risks and benefits of cannabis use in this patient population.     

Cross national comparison of medical students’ attitudes and beliefs about medical cannabis and its application for pain management

ObjectivesTo examine attitudes and beliefs about medical cannabis (MC), and specifically about its application for pain management, across medical students in Israel and Thailand.DesignCross-sectional survey which measured attitudes and beliefs about MC. Participants were additionally asked to rate the perceived efficacy of MC for different medical conditions that are related to pain (arthritis, chronic pain, fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis). Pearson's Chi-squared test was used to compare between students from the participating universities.Results430 medical students participated, 37.9 % (n = 163) from Israel and 62.1 % (n = 267) from Thailand. Personal cannabis use was reported by 55.6 % of the Israeli and only by 6.9 % of the Thai students (p < .001). Israeli secular students, compared to those from Thailand, were more likely to recommend MC for patient treatment, less concerned about serious physical and mental health risks, and more inclined to support legalization of recreational cannabis. Israeli students reported more permissive attitudes toward MC, but reported feeling less prepared to answer patient/client questions about MC than their Thai counterparts.ConclusionsThe findings of this study accentuate the need for curriculum designed around MC use to promote students' preparedness to serve patients in pain or with other medical conditions that may benefit from MC use.     

Medical Cannabis Authorization in Patients With Cancer in the Prelegalization Era: A Population-Based Study

ContextStudies show that patients with cancer use cannabis to manage symptoms and side effects. Medical cannabis is regulated by Health Canada; authorization patterns among cancer patients have not been well described.ObjectivesThe aim of the study is to describe medical cannabis authorization in Alberta, Canada.MethodsThe Alberta Cancer Registry was used to identify all patients aged 18 years and older diagnosed with invasive cancer from April 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. These cases were linked to records from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to determine factors associated with medical cannabis authorization.ResultsWe identified 41,889 patients with cancer between April 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. Of these patients, 1070 (2.6%) had a medical cannabis authorization. Fifty-one percent (541 of 1070) were authorized to use medical cannabis within one year of diagnosis, 52% (248 of 549) within one year of the start of systemic therapy, and 41% (128 of 312) within one year of the start of radiation therapy. Patients aged 18–29 (odds ratio [OR] 12.4; 95% CI 7.8–19.8), patients living in the Calgary zone (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6–2.1), those with advanced disease (Stage III/IV: OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0–1.4), and those receiving systemic therapy (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.7–2.4) were more likely to have an authorization for medical cannabis (P < 0.001).ConclusionA small proportion of patients with cancer were authorized to use medical cannabis between 2014 and 2016 in Alberta. Authorization was associated with a cancer diagnosis and receiving treatment. Younger patients, those with advanced stage disease, and those undergoing systemic treatment were predictors of medical cannabis authorization.     

Experience of migraine,its severity,and perceived efficacy of treatments among cannabis users

ObjectivesAs the legal and cultural landscape surrounding cannabis use in the United States continues to evolve, more Americans are turning to cannabis to self-medicate a number of ailments, including migraines. The purpose of the present study was to examine patterns of cannabis use and its associated relief among migraineurs.DesignParticipants were N = 589 adult cannabis users living in states with full legal access. Using a cross-sectional design, participants completed an online survey assessing their cannabis use profiles, migraine experience, and self-reported relief from cannabis and non-cannabis treatments.Results161 participants (27.3 %) reported experiencing migraines. 76.4 % of migraineurs (N = 123) endorsed using cannabis to treat their migraines. 69.9 % (N = 86) of migraineurs using cannabis for migraine relief also endorsed using non-cannabis products (e.g., over-the-counter pain medication, triptans) to treat their migraines. Although their subjective health was similar (p = .17), migraineurs who endorsed using cannabis to treat their migraines reported more severe migraines compared to those who did not (p = .02). Migraineurs reported significantly more migraine relief from cannabis compared to non-cannabis products, even after controlling for migraine severity (p = .03). The majority of migraineurs using cannabis to treat their migraines were not medical cardholders (65.0 %), suggesting that these individuals were self-medicating in lieu of physician guidance.ConclusionsThe present study provides insight into the prevalence of cannabis use for migraine relief in a sample of cannabis users, and suggests that these migraineurs experience a high level of migraine relief from cannabis. Future studies are needed to determine the cannabis forms, potencies, and dosages that are most effective at treating migraine pain.     

Pills to Pot: Observational Analyses of Cannabis Substitution Among Medical Cannabis Users With Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is common, costly, and challenging to treat. Many individuals with chronic pain have turned to cannabis as an alternative form of pain management. We report results from an ongoing, online survey of medical cannabis users with chronic pain nationwide about how cannabis affects pain management, health, and pain medication use. We also examined whether and how these parameters were affected by concomitant recreational use, and duration of use (novice: <1 year vs experienced: ≥1 year). There were 1,321 participants (59% female, 54% ≥50 years old) who completed the survey. Consistent with other observational studies, approximately 80% reported substituting cannabis for traditional pain medications (53% for opioids, 22% for benzodiazepines), citing fewer side effects and better symptom management as their rationale for doing so. Medical-only users were older (52 vs 47 years old; P < .0001), less likely to drink alcohol (66% vs 79%, P < .0001), and more likely to be currently taking opioids (21% vs 11%, P < .0001) than users with a combined recreational and medical history. Compared with novice users, experienced users were more likely to be male (64% vs 58%; P < .0001), take no concomitant pain medications (43% vs 30%), and report improved health (74% vs 67%; P = .004) with use. Given that chronic pain is the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis license, these results highlight clinically important differences among the changing population of medical cannabis users. More research is needed to better understand effective pain management regimens for medical cannabis users.Perspective: This article presents results that confirm previous clinical studies suggesting that cannabis may be an effective analgesic and potential opioid substitute. Participants reported improved pain, health, and fewer side effects as rationale for substituting. This article highlights how use duration and intentions for use affect reported treatment and substitution effects.     

Cannabis Use Preferences and Decision-making Among a Cross-sectional Cohort of Medical Cannabis Patients with Chronic Pain

Cannabis is commonly used to manage chronic pain, but cannabis use patterns among individuals with chronic pain, has not been well-characterized. We report cannabinoid, administration route, and product selection preferences among medical cannabis users with chronic pain from an ongoing, online survey. We also examined whether these preferences are affected by differences in sex, intentions behind use (medical only [MED] vs medical + recreational [MEDREC]), and experience with cannabis (novice: <1 year vs experienced: ≥1 year). The survey was completed by 1,321 participants (59% female) 76.5% of whom used cannabis every day. 93.4% used 2 or more administration routes and 72.5% used 3 or more. Female, MED, and novice users were less likely to smoke or vaporize (all P < .0001), but more likely to rank edibles, tinctures, and topicals as a first-choice administration route than their counterparts. Female and MED users also preferred low THC: high cannabidiol ratios significantly more than their counterparts. Overall, only 2.6% of participants selected cannabis products with input from a medical professional, although 54.9% relied on advice from dispensary employees. More male, MEDREC, and experienced users selected products based on factors that reflected greater comfort with cannabis (eg, smell, visual properties, cannabis variety). The wide variability in cannabis use among these different groups indicates the need for further research to investigate how specific use routines relate to clinical outcomes.PerspectiveMedical cannabis users with chronic pain show distinct differences in cannabinoid preferences and administration associated with user sex, intentions behind use, and experience with cannabis. This article highlights the wide variability in cannabis preferences among medical cannabis users with chronic pain, which may be relevant for clinical outcomes.     

Pediatric Cannabis Single-Substance Exposures Reported to the Michigan Poison Center From 2008–2019 After Medical Marijuana Legalization

BackgroundLegalization of medical and recreational cannabis is a major contributor to pediatric cannabis exposures. The trends and magnitude of pediatric cannabis exposures in Michigan after medical cannabis legalization in 2008 have not been assessed.ObjectiveTo describe the temporal trends of pediatric cannabis exposures reported to the Michigan Poison Center (MiPC) after medical cannabis was legalized in 2008 and 1 year after legalization of recreational cannabis in 2018.MethodsRetrospective electronic chart review of pediatric (<18 years old) single-substance cannabis exposures reported to the MiPC from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2019. Routes of cannabis exposure were reported as ingestion, inhalation, and unknown. Types of ingested cannabis products were also documented.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2019, 426 pediatric cannabis single exposures were reported. The median patient age was 6.0 years (interquartile range 2–15 years). Age distribution was bimodal. A total of 327 (76.8%) exposures were from cannabis ingestion, 79 (18.5%) from inhalation, 2 (0.5%) from both ingestion and inhalation, and 18 (4.2%) from unknown route. The doubling time for number of cases was 2.1 years, and the total number of annual reported cases increased after 2016. Teenagers (13–17 years) had the highest number of inhalational exposures, whereas young children (0–5 years) had the highest number of ingestions.ConclusionSingle-substance pediatric cannabis exposures reported to the Michigan Poison Center increased after medical cannabis was legalized in 2008 through recreational legalization in 2018.     

Pediatric powered wheelchairs: results of a national survey of providers

A national survey of providers of pediatric powered wheelchairs was conducted to collect background data on these professionals and to develop a "model" of their current assessment and recommendation practices. Data collected in the survey included provider demographics, frequency of powered wheelchair provision to young children, common reasons for not recommending a powered wheelchair, reasons why a child who is recommended a powered wheelchair does not receive one, current pediatric powered wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices, and subjective data regarding the efficacy of these practices and the impact of powered wheelchairs on children. Respondents rated the frequency with which they performed various wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices, and these ratings were analyzed to determine activities that were performed frequently. These activities were then combined into common "factors" using factor analysis, and the results of the factor analysis were used to create a model of current pediatric powered wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices. A total of 140 surveys were received from providers in 46 states. Of these providers, 54% were clinicians (e.g., physical therapists, occupational therapists), and 46% were suppliers (e.g., Rehabilitation Technology Specialists), representing a variety of geographic locations and facility types. The 3 major reasons for not recommending a powered wheelchair included cognitive, physical, and behavioral factors. The 3 major reasons why a child who is recommended a powered wheelchair does not receive one included funding issues, lack of family support, and transportation issues. The model of current pediatric powered wheelchair provision includes 4 assessment factors: Preliminary Clinical Assessment, Intake, Advanced Clinical Assessment, and Consideration of Other Factors. Typical recommendations include both therapeutic and nonclinical interventions. A modified version of this model, which addresses some issues identified in the survey that limit wheelchair recommendations, is currently being tested at 4 clinical sites.     

1996 RESNA/Whitaker Student Scientific Paper Competition

A national survey of providers of pediatric powered wheelchairs was conducted to collect background data on these professionals and to develop a “model” of their current assessment and recommendation practices. Data collected in the survey included provider demographics, frequency of powered wheelchair provision to young children, common reasons for not recommending a powered wheelchair, reasons why a child who is recommended a powered wheelchair does not receive one, current pediatric powered wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices, and subjective data regarding the efficacy of these practices and the impact of powered wheelchairs on children. Respondents rated the frequency with which they performed various wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices, and these ratings were analyzed to determine activities that were performed frequently. These activities were then combined into common “factors” using factor analysis, and the results of the factor analysis were used to create a model of current pediatric powered wheelchair assessment and recommendation practices. A total of 140 surveys were received from providers in 46 states. Of these providers, 54% were clinicians (e.g., physical therapists, occupational therapists), and 46% were suppliers (e.g., Rehabilitation Technology Specialists), representing a variety of geographic locations and facility types. The 3 major reasons for not recommending a powered wheelchair included cognitive, physical, and behavioral factors. The 3 major reasons why a child who is recommended a powered wheelchair does not receive one included funding issues, lack of family support, and transportation issues. The model of current pediatric powered wheelchair provision includes 4 assessment factors: Preliminary Clinical Assessment, Intake, Advanced Clinical Assessment, and Consideration of Other Factors. Typical recommendations include both therapeutic and nonclinical interventions. A modified version of this model, which addresses some issues identified in the survey that limit wheelchair recommendations, is currently being tested at 4 clinical sites.