{"title":"医学生和专业人员对医用大麻的态度和知识的系统回顾。","authors":"Jared M Weisman, Marcus Rodríguez","doi":"10.1186/s42238-021-00100-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, the renewed global interest in cannabis' therapeutic properties has resulted in shifting attitudes and legislative policies worldwide. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the existing literature on medical professionals' and students' attitudes and knowledge regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) to assess any relevant and significant trends.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, a literature search was performed to identify studies pertaining to healthcare professionals' and medical students' knowledge and attitudes regarding MC. There were no search limits on the year of publication; however, studies without primary data (e.g., abstracts, systematic reviews, meta-analyses) and non-English language papers were excluded. Studies were coded according to the following research questions: (1) Do respondents believe that cannabis should be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational purposes)? (2) Are respondents confident in their level of knowledge regarding cannabis' clinical applications? (3) Are respondents convinced of cannabis' therapeutic potential? 4) What current gaps in knowledge exist, and how can the medical community become better informed about cannabis' therapeutic uses? and (5) Are there significant differences between the knowledge and opinions of healthcare students versus healthcare professionals with respect to any of the aforementioned queries? Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between medical students and medical professionals, and Pearson's bivariate correlations were used to analyze associations between survey responses and year of publication-as a proxy measurement to assess change over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 741 items retrieved, 40 studies published between 1971 and 2019 were included in the final analyses. In an evaluation of 21 qualified studies (8016 respondents), 49.9% of all respondents favored legalization (SD = 25.7, range: 16-97%). A correlational analysis between the percentage of survey respondents who support MC legalization and year of publication suggests that both medical students' and professionals' support for MC legalization has increased from 1991 to 2019 (r(19) = .44, p = .045). Moreover, medical professionals favor the legalization of MC at a significantly higher rate than students (52% vs. 42%, respectively; χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 9019) = 50.72 p < .001). Also, respondents consistently report a strong desire for more education about MC and a substantial concern regarding MC's potential to cause dependence and addiction. Pearson's correlations between year of publication and survey responses for both of these queried variables suggest minimal changes within the last decade (2011-2019 for addiction and dependence, 2012-2019 for additional education; r(13) = - .10, p = .713 and r(12) = - .12, p = .678, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The finding that both medical students' and professionals' acceptance of MC has significantly increased in recent decades-in conjunction with their consistent, strong desire for more educational material-suggests that the medical community should prioritize the development of MC educational programs. MC is far more likely to succeed as a safe and viable therapy if the medical professionals who administer it are well-trained and confident regarding its clinical effects. Limitations include a lack of covariate-based analyses and the exclusion of studies published after the literature search was performed (June 2019). Future research should analyze studies published post-2019 to draw temporal comparisons and should investigate the effect of numerous covariates (e.g., gender, religiosity, prior cannabis use) as newer studies gather data on these factors [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020204382].</p>","PeriodicalId":15172,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cannabis Research","volume":" ","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507207/pdf/","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of medical students' and professionals' attitudes and knowledge regarding medical cannabis.\",\"authors\":\"Jared M Weisman, Marcus Rodríguez\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42238-021-00100-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, the renewed global interest in cannabis' therapeutic properties has resulted in shifting attitudes and legislative policies worldwide. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the existing literature on medical professionals' and students' attitudes and knowledge regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) to assess any relevant and significant trends.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, a literature search was performed to identify studies pertaining to healthcare professionals' and medical students' knowledge and attitudes regarding MC. There were no search limits on the year of publication; however, studies without primary data (e.g., abstracts, systematic reviews, meta-analyses) and non-English language papers were excluded. Studies were coded according to the following research questions: (1) Do respondents believe that cannabis should be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational purposes)? (2) Are respondents confident in their level of knowledge regarding cannabis' clinical applications? (3) Are respondents convinced of cannabis' therapeutic potential? 4) What current gaps in knowledge exist, and how can the medical community become better informed about cannabis' therapeutic uses? and (5) Are there significant differences between the knowledge and opinions of healthcare students versus healthcare professionals with respect to any of the aforementioned queries? Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between medical students and medical professionals, and Pearson's bivariate correlations were used to analyze associations between survey responses and year of publication-as a proxy measurement to assess change over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 741 items retrieved, 40 studies published between 1971 and 2019 were included in the final analyses. In an evaluation of 21 qualified studies (8016 respondents), 49.9% of all respondents favored legalization (SD = 25.7, range: 16-97%). A correlational analysis between the percentage of survey respondents who support MC legalization and year of publication suggests that both medical students' and professionals' support for MC legalization has increased from 1991 to 2019 (r(19) = .44, p = .045). Moreover, medical professionals favor the legalization of MC at a significantly higher rate than students (52% vs. 42%, respectively; χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 9019) = 50.72 p < .001). Also, respondents consistently report a strong desire for more education about MC and a substantial concern regarding MC's potential to cause dependence and addiction. Pearson's correlations between year of publication and survey responses for both of these queried variables suggest minimal changes within the last decade (2011-2019 for addiction and dependence, 2012-2019 for additional education; r(13) = - .10, p = .713 and r(12) = - .12, p = .678, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The finding that both medical students' and professionals' acceptance of MC has significantly increased in recent decades-in conjunction with their consistent, strong desire for more educational material-suggests that the medical community should prioritize the development of MC educational programs. MC is far more likely to succeed as a safe and viable therapy if the medical professionals who administer it are well-trained and confident regarding its clinical effects. Limitations include a lack of covariate-based analyses and the exclusion of studies published after the literature search was performed (June 2019). Future research should analyze studies published post-2019 to draw temporal comparisons and should investigate the effect of numerous covariates (e.g., gender, religiosity, prior cannabis use) as newer studies gather data on these factors [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020204382].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cannabis Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507207/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cannabis Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-021-00100-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cannabis Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-021-00100-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
摘要
背景:最近,全球对大麻治疗特性的新兴趣导致了全世界态度和立法政策的转变。本系统综述的目的是探讨现有文献对医学专业人员和学生的态度和知识,对药用大麻(MC)评估任何相关的和显著的趋势。方法:本系统评价按照PRISMA指南进行。使用PubMed和Google Scholar进行文献检索,以确定与医疗保健专业人员和医学生关于MC的知识和态度有关的研究。没有出版年份的搜索限制;然而,没有原始数据的研究(如摘要、系统综述、元分析)和非英语论文被排除在外。研究根据以下研究问题进行编码:(1)受访者是否认为大麻应该合法化(用于医疗和/或娱乐目的)?(2)受访者对大麻临床应用的知识水平有信心吗?(3)受访者是否相信大麻的治疗潜力?4)目前存在哪些知识空白,医学界如何才能更好地了解大麻的治疗用途?(5)医学生与专业医护人员对上述任何问题的知识和意见是否有显著差异?卡方检验用于评估医学生和医学专业人员之间的差异,皮尔逊双变量相关性用于分析调查结果与发表年份之间的关联,作为评估随时间变化的代理测量。结果:在检索到的741项研究中,有40项发表于1971年至2019年之间的研究被纳入最终分析。在对21项合格研究(8016名受访者)的评估中,49.9%的受访者赞成合法化(SD = 25.7,范围:16-97%)。支持大麻合法化的受访者百分比与出版年份之间的相关分析表明,从1991年到2019年,医学生和专业人员对大麻合法化的支持都有所增加(r(19) = 0.44, p = 0.045)。此外,医疗专业人员支持大麻合法化的比例显著高于学生(分别为52%对42%;χ2 (1, N = 9019) = 50.72, p < 0.001)。此外,受访者一致表示,他们强烈希望接受更多关于大麻的教育,并对大麻可能导致依赖和成瘾感到非常担忧。Pearson对这两个被查询变量的出版年份和调查回应之间的相关性表明,在过去十年中变化很小(2011-2019年为成瘾和依赖,2012-2019年为额外教育;R (13) = - 0.10, p = .713, R (12) = - 0.12, p = .678)。结论:近几十年来,医学生和专业人员对MC的接受程度显著增加,同时他们对更多教育材料的强烈需求也一致,这表明医学界应该优先发展MC教育项目。如果执行MC的医疗专业人员训练有素,并且对其临床效果充满信心,那么MC作为一种安全可行的治疗方法就更有可能成功。局限性包括缺乏基于协变量的分析,并且排除了文献检索后发表的研究(2019年6月)。未来的研究应分析2019年后发表的研究,以进行时间比较,并应调查许多协变量(如性别、宗教信仰、以前使用大麻)的影响,因为新的研究收集了这些因素的数据[PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020204382]。
A systematic review of medical students' and professionals' attitudes and knowledge regarding medical cannabis.
Background: Recently, the renewed global interest in cannabis' therapeutic properties has resulted in shifting attitudes and legislative policies worldwide. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the existing literature on medical professionals' and students' attitudes and knowledge regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) to assess any relevant and significant trends.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, a literature search was performed to identify studies pertaining to healthcare professionals' and medical students' knowledge and attitudes regarding MC. There were no search limits on the year of publication; however, studies without primary data (e.g., abstracts, systematic reviews, meta-analyses) and non-English language papers were excluded. Studies were coded according to the following research questions: (1) Do respondents believe that cannabis should be legalized (for medicinal and/or recreational purposes)? (2) Are respondents confident in their level of knowledge regarding cannabis' clinical applications? (3) Are respondents convinced of cannabis' therapeutic potential? 4) What current gaps in knowledge exist, and how can the medical community become better informed about cannabis' therapeutic uses? and (5) Are there significant differences between the knowledge and opinions of healthcare students versus healthcare professionals with respect to any of the aforementioned queries? Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between medical students and medical professionals, and Pearson's bivariate correlations were used to analyze associations between survey responses and year of publication-as a proxy measurement to assess change over time.
Results: Out of the 741 items retrieved, 40 studies published between 1971 and 2019 were included in the final analyses. In an evaluation of 21 qualified studies (8016 respondents), 49.9% of all respondents favored legalization (SD = 25.7, range: 16-97%). A correlational analysis between the percentage of survey respondents who support MC legalization and year of publication suggests that both medical students' and professionals' support for MC legalization has increased from 1991 to 2019 (r(19) = .44, p = .045). Moreover, medical professionals favor the legalization of MC at a significantly higher rate than students (52% vs. 42%, respectively; χ2 (1, N = 9019) = 50.72 p < .001). Also, respondents consistently report a strong desire for more education about MC and a substantial concern regarding MC's potential to cause dependence and addiction. Pearson's correlations between year of publication and survey responses for both of these queried variables suggest minimal changes within the last decade (2011-2019 for addiction and dependence, 2012-2019 for additional education; r(13) = - .10, p = .713 and r(12) = - .12, p = .678, respectively).
Conclusion: The finding that both medical students' and professionals' acceptance of MC has significantly increased in recent decades-in conjunction with their consistent, strong desire for more educational material-suggests that the medical community should prioritize the development of MC educational programs. MC is far more likely to succeed as a safe and viable therapy if the medical professionals who administer it are well-trained and confident regarding its clinical effects. Limitations include a lack of covariate-based analyses and the exclusion of studies published after the literature search was performed (June 2019). Future research should analyze studies published post-2019 to draw temporal comparisons and should investigate the effect of numerous covariates (e.g., gender, religiosity, prior cannabis use) as newer studies gather data on these factors [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020204382].