Patient-provider interactions about cannabis for therapeutic purposes vary as a function of provider type: A pilot study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Jivan Achar, Alan J Budney, Cara A Struble
{"title":"Patient-provider interactions about cannabis for therapeutic purposes vary as a function of provider type: A pilot study.","authors":"Jivan Achar, Alan J Budney, Cara A Struble","doi":"10.1111/ajad.13656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Limited evidence guides the efficacy and safety of cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP). Healthcare providers lack requisite knowledge to advise and support patients. This study aimed to describe and compare several aspects of initial CTP interactions across different provider types.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult cannabis consumers (N = 507) from the United States completed an anonymous online survey about their initial CTP interaction with their healthcare provider. Providers were categorized into four groups (Mental Health [MH], Family Medicine [FM], Medical Clinics [MC], and Other Specialty [OS]). Analyses compared several aspects of the interaction (e.g., risk mitigation, recommendations, satisfaction/confidence) across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Less than half of the sample reported discussion of cannabis risks (44.0%) or follow-ups at subsequent visits (46.7%). Recommendations (where to obtain, consumption method, dose, frequency, and authorization) were uncommon (9.7%-25.2%). While the MH group reported the highest rates of risk mitigation behaviors, regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and cannabis characteristics were largely nonsignificant. For recommendations, the MC group was more likely than the MH group to report receiving all recommendations (p < .05). Younger age and greater cannabis-related problems increased likelihood of risk mitigation and recommendations.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>CTP interactions focused on risk but generally lacked comprehensive recommendations that could potentially promote safe use. Data from provider perspectives could support the need for CTP guidelines and develop training for healthcare providers to promote safe CTP practices.</p><p><strong>Scientific significance: </strong>For the first time, this study explored several aspects of CTP interactions and compared experiences across a variety of providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":7762,"journal":{"name":"American Journal on Addictions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal on Addictions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.13656","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Limited evidence guides the efficacy and safety of cannabis for therapeutic purposes (CTP). Healthcare providers lack requisite knowledge to advise and support patients. This study aimed to describe and compare several aspects of initial CTP interactions across different provider types.

Methods: Adult cannabis consumers (N = 507) from the United States completed an anonymous online survey about their initial CTP interaction with their healthcare provider. Providers were categorized into four groups (Mental Health [MH], Family Medicine [FM], Medical Clinics [MC], and Other Specialty [OS]). Analyses compared several aspects of the interaction (e.g., risk mitigation, recommendations, satisfaction/confidence) across groups.

Results: Less than half of the sample reported discussion of cannabis risks (44.0%) or follow-ups at subsequent visits (46.7%). Recommendations (where to obtain, consumption method, dose, frequency, and authorization) were uncommon (9.7%-25.2%). While the MH group reported the highest rates of risk mitigation behaviors, regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and cannabis characteristics were largely nonsignificant. For recommendations, the MC group was more likely than the MH group to report receiving all recommendations (p < .05). Younger age and greater cannabis-related problems increased likelihood of risk mitigation and recommendations.

Discussion and conclusions: CTP interactions focused on risk but generally lacked comprehensive recommendations that could potentially promote safe use. Data from provider perspectives could support the need for CTP guidelines and develop training for healthcare providers to promote safe CTP practices.

Scientific significance: For the first time, this study explored several aspects of CTP interactions and compared experiences across a variety of providers.

患者与提供者之间关于用于治疗目的的大麻的互动因提供者类型而异:一项试点研究。
背景和目的:指导治疗用大麻(CTP)疗效和安全性的证据有限。医疗服务提供者缺乏为患者提供建议和支持的必要知识。本研究旨在描述和比较不同类型医疗服务提供者之间最初 CTP 互动的几个方面:来自美国的成年大麻消费者(N = 507)完成了一项匿名在线调查,内容涉及他们与医疗服务提供者的初次 CTP 互动。医疗服务提供者分为四组(心理健康 [MH]、家庭医学 [FM]、医疗诊所 [MC] 和其他专科 [OS])。分析比较了各组互动的几个方面(如风险缓解、建议、满意度/信心):结果:不到一半的样本报告了对大麻风险的讨论(44.0%)或后续就诊时的随访(46.7%)。建议(从何处获取、食用方法、剂量、频率和授权)并不常见(9.7%-25.2%)。虽然精神健康组报告的风险缓解行为比例最高,但根据社会人口学特征和大麻特征调整后的回归模型基本没有显著性。就建议而言,MC 组比 MH 组更有可能报告接受了所有建议(p 讨论和结论:CTP 互动侧重于风险,但普遍缺乏可能促进安全使用的全面建议。从医疗服务提供者角度获得的数据可支持制定 CTP 指南的必要性,并为医疗服务提供者开展培训,以促进安全的 CTP 实践:本研究首次探讨了 CTP 互动的多个方面,并比较了不同医疗服务提供者的经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: The American Journal on Addictions is the official journal of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. The Academy encourages research on the etiology, prevention, identification, and treatment of substance abuse; thus, the journal provides a forum for the dissemination of information in the extensive field of addiction. Each issue of this publication covers a wide variety of topics ranging from codependence to genetics, epidemiology to dual diagnostics, etiology to neuroscience, and much more. Features of the journal, all written by experts in the field, include special overview articles, clinical or basic research papers, clinical updates, and book reviews within the area of addictions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信