Cannabis health survey on usage in women with spinal cord injury and knowledge among physicians: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) report using cannabis to self-manage chronic pain and spasticity. However, its safety and efficacy are not well understood. As more women with SCI are pursuing motherhood, clinicians must consider the possibility of maternal cannabis use and its impact on fetal development. Moreover, due to the lack of current evidence for cannabis, it is important to characterize the perceptions and knowledge of physicians towards both recreational and synthetic cannabinoids.Design: Two anonymous surveys (10-items each) were conducted.Setting and Participants: Women with SCI (n = 20) completed an anonymous, online survey regarding cannabis use. Physicians at a Canadian SCI rehabilitation center (n = 15) completed a survey on their knowledge of recreational and synthetic cannabinoids among individuals with SCI.Outcome measures: Survey 1 evaluated cannabis use patterns and perceptions before/after SCI in women, including during pregnancy and breastfeeding. The aim of Survey 2 was to understand the perception and current knowledge of physicians regarding recreational cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid use by patients with SCI.Results: At the time of survey, 7 women with SCI reported use of cannabis, only 4 of them used prior to injury. Managing tone/spasticity (n = 5) was the major reported benefit of cannabis use. Women used cannabis during pregnancy and/or breastfeeding as a sleep aid or relief for morning sickness (n = 1 pregnancy, n = 1 breastfeeding, n = 1 both). The most-reported challenge with cannabis use was difficulty obtaining consistent, desirable effects (n = 5). Almost all physicians (n = 13) described their knowledge on recreational cannabis products as “none, very little or poor”, with greater overall comfort and knowledge of synthetic cannabinoids.Conclusion: Due to the reported use of cannabis during pregnancy/breastfeeding and current impoverishment of physicians’ knowledge (particularly regarding recreational cannabis products), it is imperative to further investigate the safety and efficacy of cannabis use in women with SCI.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".