Concerns, beliefs and attitudes of pharmacists and pharmacy students on cannabis use in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since cannabis has been legalized in Canada for medical and recreational use, there has been an increased demand on pharmacists for cannabis counselling. The objective of this study was to determine the concerns, beliefs and attitudes of Canadian pharmacists and pharmacy students towards using cannabis. Methods: An online survey was synthesized under 3 broad themes: concerns, beliefs and attitudes about cannabis, consisting of 27 questions capturing demographics and Likert scale responding to survey questions. We examined whether there were differences in responses by geographic location (i.e., Ontario, Quebec, Canada), sex or practice setting (i.e., community, hospital). Results: Across Canada, there were 654 survey respondents, with 399 in Ontario and 95 in Quebec. Approximately 24% indicated they had used cannabis since legalization, 69% indicated they believed cannabis should be available for medical and recreational use and 34% indicated their perceptions towards cannabis had become more positive since legalization. Relative to Quebec or the rest of Canada, respondents from Ontario were significantly more likely to be comfortable providing counselling to and answering questions of patients on the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis use. Examining sex differences across Canada, male respondents were more comfortable than female counselling patients on the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis. Conclusion: The current results reinforce the perceived need by pharmacists and pharmacy students for targeted education, and future research in cannabis education should consider potential gender differences in attitudes and beliefs surrounding cannabis therapy.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".