CANADIAN PEDIATRICIANS’ VIEWS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CANNABIS USE FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES AMONG CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND Cannabis use for medical purposes has gathered growing interest from the public through its purported benefits. Since 2001, Health Canada has authorized availability from health practitioners, even for paediatric patients, despite concerns regarding efficacy and adverse effects among children and adolescents. It is likely that a lack of knowledge regarding the substance and indications for use, tempered by known and unknown side effects, dictate paediatricians’ practice toward cannabis. OBJECTIVES This study examines the views and knowledge of Canadian paediatricians regarding the use of cannabis for medical purposes among children and adolescents. Differences between general paediatricians and sub-specialists were explored. DESIGN/METHODS Data was collected using a Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) one-time survey performed in 2017. A total of 864 paediatric physicians (33% participation rate) were asked about medical use of cannabis. They were also asked personal and professional characteristics. Descriptive statistics regarding their views and knowledge towards cannabis use for medical purposes are reported, as well as significant differences (p<0.05) based on their belonging to either the general paediatricians or the sub-specialists subgroup. RESULTS General paediatricians represented 55.4% of the analyzed sample, with 36.7% having ≥ 20 years of practice. Half (50.4%) of all surveyed paediatricians had encountered in the past year patients who used cannabis for medical purposes (authorized or not). Half (50.6%) were also aware that Canadian physicians could authorize cannabis to children for medical purposes. More (61.3%) knew they could authorize it to adolescents (significantly more among sub-specialists, p=0.03). Nearly half (46.5%) believed that there are appropriate indications to support the authorization of cannabis for medical reasons to the paediatric population (significantly more among sub-specialists, p<0.01). The most common reasons for not prescribing were the lack of medical evidence about clinical efficacy (82.8%), dosing/toxicity (79.0%) and concerns about potential long-term impacts (78.4%). Most paediatricians reported little knowledge on why cannabis could be authorized (75.9%), what products may be authorized (89.1%), and how cannabis can be authorized (90.4%), sub-specialists reporting the highest knowledge on each topic (p<0.01). CONCLUSION Cannabis use for medical purposes is a situation frequently encountered by paediatricians. While they are generally supportive of certain medical indications for its authorization, most have minimal knowledge on its use and, report concerns about efficacy and safety. Differences between general paediatricians and sub-specialists probably emerge from conditions treated by these two groups. Our study highlights the need for timely continuing education for all paediatricians on this topic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».