Benefits and Concerns regarding Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes Among People Living with Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although there is growing interest in medically authorized cannabis for chronic pain, little is known about patients' perspectives. We explored perceptions of people living with chronic pain regarding benefits and concerns surrounding their use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. SETTING: A hospital-based clinic in Hamilton and two community-based interdisciplinary pain clinics in Burlington, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 people living with chronic pain who used cannabis therapeutically, living in Ontario, Canada. We used thematic analysis, with data collection, coding, and analysis occurring concurrently. RESULTS: People living with chronic pain reported important benefits associated with use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, including reduced pain, improved functionality, and less risk of harms compared to prescription opioids. Most patients also acknowledged harms, such as grogginess and coughing, and there was considerable variability in patient experiences. Financial costs and stigma were identified as important barriers to use of cannabis. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based guidance that incorporates patients' values and preferences may be helpful to inform the role of cannabis in the management of chronic pain.
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 | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".