Evaluations of State Medical Cannabis Programs in the USA: A Narrative Review.

Q1 Medicine
Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids Pub Date : 2024-11-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000542472
Lirit Franks, Gerald Cochran, Carter Reeves, Michael A Incze, Clinton J Hardy, Adam J Gordon, A Taylor Kelley
{"title":"Evaluations of State Medical Cannabis Programs in the USA: A Narrative Review.","authors":"Lirit Franks, Gerald Cochran, Carter Reeves, Michael A Incze, Clinton J Hardy, Adam J Gordon, A Taylor Kelley","doi":"10.1159/000542472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical cannabis (MC) use is increasing across the USA, with functional MC programs now operating in 38 states. While program policies and practices vary widely, little is known about whether and how states evaluate their programs. Better characterization of state MC program evaluation to date could inform states, program officials, and providers about best practices and provide a roadmap for future program evaluation.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We conducted a narrative review of state MC program evaluations, including peer-reviewed literature and reports produced by independent state-based and non-state-based evaluators. Among 304 abstracts initially screened, seven evaluations met inclusion criteria. Within these evaluations, we report results according to three overarching themes: (1) evaluation characteristics, including comparison across evaluations; (2) program experience, including perceptions of providers and patients; and (3) assessment of cannabis use, including self-reported efficacy for qualifying medical conditions, patterns of medical and nonmedical cannabis use, and assessment of risk factors relevant to MC use. Additionally, we found that while goals and methods for state MC evaluations varied widely, evaluations that relied on independent, non-state entities tended to have more comprehensive and quantitatively rigorous results.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Few states operating MC programs have completed a formal evaluation of their program. Among states that have completed an evaluation, approaches varied widely; however, common themes were also present, which may inform future state evaluation efforts. Evaluation through independent, non-state partners may provide an optimal strategy to ensure high-quality data and meaningful results.</p>","PeriodicalId":18415,"journal":{"name":"Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids","volume":"7 1","pages":"243-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11620772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medical cannabis (MC) use is increasing across the USA, with functional MC programs now operating in 38 states. While program policies and practices vary widely, little is known about whether and how states evaluate their programs. Better characterization of state MC program evaluation to date could inform states, program officials, and providers about best practices and provide a roadmap for future program evaluation.

Summary: We conducted a narrative review of state MC program evaluations, including peer-reviewed literature and reports produced by independent state-based and non-state-based evaluators. Among 304 abstracts initially screened, seven evaluations met inclusion criteria. Within these evaluations, we report results according to three overarching themes: (1) evaluation characteristics, including comparison across evaluations; (2) program experience, including perceptions of providers and patients; and (3) assessment of cannabis use, including self-reported efficacy for qualifying medical conditions, patterns of medical and nonmedical cannabis use, and assessment of risk factors relevant to MC use. Additionally, we found that while goals and methods for state MC evaluations varied widely, evaluations that relied on independent, non-state entities tended to have more comprehensive and quantitatively rigorous results.

Key messages: Few states operating MC programs have completed a formal evaluation of their program. Among states that have completed an evaluation, approaches varied widely; however, common themes were also present, which may inform future state evaluation efforts. Evaluation through independent, non-state partners may provide an optimal strategy to ensure high-quality data and meaningful results.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids
Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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