Medicinal Cannabis

Abstract

The potential of MCs to benefit some patients is hindered by the lack of comfort of clinicians to recommend it. Training opportunities are badly needed to address these issues.

Oncology Clinicians and the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program: A Survey on Medical Cannabis Practice Patterns, Barriers to Enrollment, and Educational Needs

“…A previous healthcare provider survey conducted in Washington State revealed a low level of self-reported knowledge and comfort in recommending medical cannabis. 32 Clinicians lack of solid knowledge may come from many factors, including (1) difficulty tracking the many different types of cannabis programs/requirements (e.g., state laws on recreational vs medical program), (2) the fact that cannabis remains a schedule one drug and, consequently, clinicians have little direct experience overseeing its use, and (3) the number of large, high-quality randomized studies showing both efficacy and safety of cannabis in the cancer setting is limited. While the respondents of this broader discipline survey agreed that clinicians should have structured training and education on medical cannabis, less than a quarter (24%) received information about medical cannabis through lectures or continuing medical education programming.…”

“…Education seemed to have a clear effect on engagement in medical cannabis prescribing; clinicians who had written authorizations for medical cannabis were more likely to have received training than those who did not write authorizations. 32 …”

“…Studies conducted among clinicians in Colorado 33 and Canada 34 have yielded findings similar to that of the Washington State survey. 32 Through this previous research, two clear takeaways emerge: the primary source of surveyed clinicians' source of information is informal channels (e.g., the media, other clinicians, and patients), however, if training were available, clinicians would participate. While our Minnesota survey did not inquire about where respondents were receiving information on medical cannabis, our participants expressed strong interest in receiving additional education about medical cannabis and our state's medical cannabis program.…”

The distribution of Ohio’s Certificates to Recommend: who will “prescribe” medical marijuana?

“…Although low rates of physician participation have been observed in other state medical cannabis programs (Sideris et al 2018;Aggarwal et al 2009), little is known about the factors that influence a physician's decision to become certified or registered to recommend MMJ. Regarding physician knowledge and attitudes, surveys have identified consistent themes such as: inadequate training in the therapeutic use of cannabis, insufficient evidence regarding benefits and harms, and concerns regarding misuse and abuse (Sideris et al 2018;Kondrad and Reid 2013;Michalec et al 2015;Philpot et al 2019;Carlini et al 2017). However, these studies have generally relied on voluntary survey methodologies, with a focus on physicians' perceptions and self-reported biases.…”

Comparison of cannabinoids with known analgesics using a novel high throughput zebrafish larval model of nociception

“…One such product that has steadily gained interest in the field of pain management is cannabis (Kim and Fishman 2017). While the use of medical marijuana is gaining mainstream support, challenges still exist with its use, such as dosing, side effect profiles (psycho-activity, toxicity) and an overall lack of knowledge of its mechanism of action, which often makes clinicians hesitant to prescribe it (Carlini, Garrett et al 2017). Some of these challenges stem from the fact that in addition to the most characterized cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), cannabis contains numerous other cannabinoids along with terpenes and flavonoids that all may have biological activity but are poorly characterized (Andre, Hausman et al 2016).…”