Mandatory pharmacist-led education session for patients seeking medical cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this pre-post session study, was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led education session on the perceived benefits and safety of cannabis among patients with chronic pain, as well as determine the influence of pharmacist education on the selection of safer cannabis products and dosage forms for medical use among patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of completed pre-post session questionnaires was conducted among chronic pain patients attending a mandatory education session led by a pharmacist, prior to being authorized cannabis in clinic. All questionnaire data was analyzed using SPSS v. 25. Demographic and sample characteristics were reviewed using univariate analyses. Chi-Square tests were employed to determine if the group-based education significantly affected knowledge, perception of efficacy and safety of cannabis. RESULTS: Of the 260 session participants, 203 completed pre-post session questionnaires. After the session, a majority of current cannabis users (33.8%) and cannabis naïve/past users (56.9%) reported they would use a low THC product in the future, and a majority of current users (54.5%) would use a high CBD product in the future. After education, participants were more likely to report cannabis as having the potential for addiction (chi-square =42.6, p <0.0001) and harm (chi-square =34.0, p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist counselling and education has the potential to influence patient selection and use of cannabis, from more harmful to safer products, as well as moderate the potential perceived benefits of use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".