{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Patient-provider interactions about cannabis for therapeutic purposes vary as a function of provider type: A pilot study.
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.
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.