Aims and Objectives: To explore the ways in which stigma is experienced, and what strategies are used to manage stigma among patients using medical cannabis to ease suffering from chronic pain.Background: Various jurisdictions have legalised medical cannabis in recent decades.Despite increasing prevalence and more liberal attitudes towards medical cannabis, it is possible that patients who use medical cannabis experience stigma.Design: A phenomenological qualitative study.Methods: Fifteen patients living with chronic pain and licensed by the Israeli Ministry of Health to use medical cannabis to treat pain symptoms for at least 1 year participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic analysis to identify themes related to stigma. The manuscript is in correspondence to SRQR EQUATOR checklist.Results: Expressions of stigma were more related to 'felt' than 'enacted' stigma.Stigma related to decisions to delay onset of medical cannabis treatment and the ways in which participants managed medical cannabis use during their everyday lives.Participants dissociated themselves from recreational cannabis users, by presenting themselves as responsible normative individuals and engaging in a form of normalisation known as 'normification', emphasising their own discrete and controlled medical cannabis use and cannabis' benefits.Conclusions: Patients experienced 'felt' stigma which had consequences for their self-presentations and medical cannabis use. This suggests that medical cannabis is not normalised in Israel and interventions may be needed to handle stigma related to medical cannabis. Relevance to clinical practice:The findings emphasise the effects of 'felt' stigma on patients. Aiming to increase the effectiveness of medical cannabis treatment and reducing harms, we suggest that particular focus should be placed on managing stigmaThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims and ObjectivesIn this study, we systematically reviewed qualitative studies concerning patients' experience with medicinal cannabis (MC) use, to gain insight into the negative effects of MC.BackgroundOver the past decades, the use of MC for therapeutic purposes has increased. However, there is conflicting and insufficient data on possible negative physiological and psychological effects of MC treatment.DesignA systematic review was conducted and the PRISMA guidelines were adopted. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist used to assess risk of bias in the included studies.MethodsWe included studies focusing on conventional medical treatment using cannabis‐based products, approved by a physician for a particular health issue.ResultsOf the 1230 articles identified in the initial search, eight articles were included in the review. Following the compilation of themes in the eligible studies, six themes were identified: (1) MC approval; (2) administrative barriers; (3) social perception; (4) MC misuse/widespread effect; (5) adverse effects; and (6) dependence or addiction. These were grouped into two meta‐themes: (1) administrative and social aspects of MC use; and (2) experiences of the effects of medicinal cannabis.ConclusionsOur findings call for specific attention to unique consequences associated with MC use. Further research is needed in order to assess the degree to which negative experiences associated with MC use may affect various aspects of patients' medical condition.Relevance to clinical practiceDescribing the complex experience of MC treatment and its spectrum of consequences for patients may enable physicians, therapists and researchers to provide more attentive and accurate MC treatment to their patients.Patient or public contributionIn this review, patients' narratives were explored, yet the research methods did not directly involve patients or the public.