Analyzing the Perspectives of Health Professionals and Legal Cannabis Users on the Treatment of Chronic Pain With Cannabidiol: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis is one of the most commonly reported treatments for chronic pain. The wide acceptance and research in alternative medicine have put medical cannabis in the limelight, where researchers are widely examining its therapeutic benefits, including treatment of chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the perspectives on cannabidiol as an alternative treatment for chronic pain among health professionals and legal cannabis users. METHODS: The framework of Arksey and O'Malley guides the design of this scoping review, and the elements reported use the recommended guidelines of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). A comprehensive literature search accessed the databases CINAHL Complete and MEDLINE via EBSCO, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare, Wiley Online Library, Scopus, Informit New Zealand Collection, and Google Scholar for published literature, and then it was extended to include gray literature. Gray literature searches included searching the databases Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, Informit New Zealand Collection, INNZ: Index New Zealand, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and AUT Tuwhera Research Repository, and the website nzresearch.org.nz. The studies included in this scoping review were assessed for eligibility for inclusion using the following criteria: published in English after 2000, conducted in New Zealand (NZ) or Australia, and aimed to investigate the perspectives of health professionals and medical cannabis users using interviews for data collection. Studies were screened for inclusion using Covidence, a software tool to filter search results, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Although this is not a required step for scoping reviews, it added an element of strength to this scoping review. Data will be analyzed using thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke. The findings from the data analysis will be presented in a table, which will then inform the key themes for discussion. RESULTS: The database search started in October 2021 and was completed in December 2021. The total number of studies included in this review is 5 (n=5). Studies included were conducted in NZ or Australia and examined the perspectives using participant interviews. This scoping review is anticipated to be submitted for publication in December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Using perspectives is a valuable tool to understand the challenges experienced by health professionals and medical cannabis users associated with medical cannabis treatment. Addressing these challenges through interventions that are highlighted through perspectives such as educating health professionals to increase access to medical cannabis in NZ may aid in policy reformulation for medical cannabis in the context of NZ. Thus, this scoping review highlights the importance of medical cannabis research and suggests recommendations to guide and inform medical cannabis policy in the context of NZ. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37697.
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 | 0.093 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.014 |
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".