MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7029120588

Individuals’ Values and Preferences Regarding Medical Cannabis for Chronic Pain: A Descriptive Qualitative Study

2024· other· en· W7029120588 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2024
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender, Security, and Conflict
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésCannabisMedical cannabisQualitative researchChronic painGuidelineAlternative medicineMEDLINE
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Hanson Cummings,1,* Moizza Zia Ul Haq,1,* Amne Dargham,1 Nauman Shakeel,1 Jason W Busse,1– 3 Andrea J Darzi,1,3 Elizabeth Alvarez1,4 1Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 2Michael G DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 4Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Elizabeth Alvarez, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, CRL 2nd Floor, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada, Tel +1 905 525-9140 Ext. 22248, Email alvare@mcmaster.caBackground: Cannabis for medical purposes has been legal in Canada since 2001; however, physicians receive no formal training in this modality, and clinical use of cannabis remains controversial. This study aims to explore the values and preferences of people living with chronic pain (PLwCP) in using medical cannabis for chronic pain to inform guideline development and shared decision-making in clinical practice.Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using in-depth interviews with PLwCP. Using a deductive/inductive approach, we developed concepts and themes related to values and preferences of PLwCP on their use (or avoidance) of medical cannabis for chronic pain.Results: We interviewed 52 PLwCP, including current medical cannabis users (40), previous users (10) and non-users (2). Most PLwCP who used cannabis therapeutically reported the need for experimentation to determine what cannabis products, routes, and doses worked for them. Perceived benefits of medical cannabis among current users included relief from pain, better sleep, and improved mental health. Reasons for discontinuing use of medical cannabis included lack of improvement in pain or sleep or undesirable side effects. Cannabidiol (CBD) dominant products were reported to result in minimal adverse effects (eg, physical or mental impairment) compared to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dominant products. Perceived barriers or facilitators to use included social acceptability, availability or access, cost, and attitudes and knowledge among healthcare providers. Participants noted different routes of cannabis use including oral routes that provided longer-lasting pain relief with a slower onset and inhaled routes with a more rapid onset with shorter-lived effects.Conclusion: Participants’ decisions to use medical cannabis for chronic pain were varied, which suggests these decisions are likely to be sensitive to individuals’ values and preferences. There is a call for further research and information-sharing to help PLwCP understand the complexities of cannabis use for medical purposes, including ideal dosing and timing.Plain Language Summary: In Canada, cannabis for medical reasons has been legal since 2001. It has been used as one of the many strategies for chronic or ongoing pain, but doctors are not given consistent information regarding its use, and existing guidance does not include the patient point of view. We did this study to explore how people living with chronic pain feel about the use of medical cannabis. We asked 52 people living with chronic pain, including current medical cannabis users, previous users, and non-users. We found that many people who used cannabis for their pain had to experiment to determine what cannabis products, routes, and doses worked for them. Benefits of medical cannabis included relief from pain, better sleep, and improved mental health. Reasons for stopping medical cannabis included no to little improvement in pain and/or sleep or the presence of unwanted side effects. Cannabidiol (CBD) products resulted in fewer unwanted effects (eg, physical or mental impairment) compared to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products. People discussed different routes of cannabis use including oral routes that provided longer-lasting pain relief but with a slower onset and inhaled routes with a faster onset of relief but with shorter-lived effects. People’s decisions regarding medical cannabis use for chronic pain were varied, suggesting these decisions are likely to be sensitive to individual’s values and preferences. More research is needed to learn what doses, products, and routes work for specific chronic pain conditions.Keywords: medical cannabis, chronic pain, health services, guideline, patient values and preferences, Canada

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,947
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,085
Tête enseignante GPT0,377
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Même sujetGender, Security, and ConflictTravaux en français237 207