MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385820930 · doi:10.1097/cxa.0000000000000143

Implications of Cannabis Legalization: Are Family Physicians Prepared? A Survey of Family Physicians in Saskatchewan, Canada

2022· article· en· W4385820930 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julia Di Giovanni, Ciara Mawson, Hebbah Sherghin, Adam Clay, Rejina Kamrul

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Addiction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisRecreationFamily medicineLegalizationMedicinePsychiatryCross-sectional studyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTRésumé Objectives: Recreational cannabis use was legalized in Canada in 2018. There is minimal research assessing family physicians’ abilities to address recreational cannabis use with patients. We sought to assess family physician's knowledge and practice of screening and counseling patients on legalized recreational cannabis consumption. Methods: Family physicians in Saskatchewan were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey, distributed by the Saskatchewan Medical Association, in January to February 2020. The survey captured family physicians’ knowledge of recreational cannabis counseling practices and continued training needs. Results: Eighty-two surveys were completed (10% response rate). Ninety-three percent of participants were aware of the implementation of the Cannabis Act. While 78% of physicians were aware of Canadian cannabis consumption driving regulations, only 25% were very comfortable counseling patients regarding safe driving. Forty-six percent of participants felt moderately to very comfortable identifying vulnerable cannabis users. Forty-three percent of participants were moderately to very comfortable identifying counseling patients on recreational cannabis use. Physicians were generally able to identify patient populations who should avoid cannabis and the side effects of cannabis. Physician who had practiced for >10 years were more likely to identify side effects than those with less experience. Conclusions: Family physicians’ knowledge is inadequate, and they frequently lack confidence to counsel their patients on recreational cannabis use. Most are not aware of assessment tools, which may account for the lack of screening for cannabis use disorder and identification of vulnerable users. There is a need for increased research and targeted medical education regarding recreational cannabis use. Objectifs: La consommation de cannabis à des fins récréatives a été légalisée au Canada en 2018. Il existe peu de recherches évaluant les capacités des médecins de famille à aborder la consommation de cannabis à des fins récréatives avec les patients. Nous avons cherché à évaluer les connaissances et la pratique des médecins de famille en matière de dépistage et de conseil aux patients sur la consommation légale de cannabis à des fins récréatives. Méthodes: Les médecins de famille de la Saskatchewan ont été invités à répondre à une enquête transversale, distribuée par la Saskatchewan Medical Association, en janvier-février 2020. L’enquête a saisi les connaissances des médecins de famille sur les pratiques de conseil en matière de cannabis récréatif et les besoins de formation continue. Résultats: Quatre-vingt-deux questionnaires ont été remplis (taux de réponse de 10%). Quatrevingt-treize pour cent des participants étaient au courant de la mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur le cannabis. Alors que 78% des médecins étaient au courant de la réglementation canadienne sur la consommation de cannabis au volant, seulement 25% étaient très à l’aise de conseiller les patients sur la conduite sécuritaire. Quarante-six pour cent des participants se sentaient de modérément à très à l’aise pour identifier les consommateurs de cannabis vulnérables. Quarantetrois pour cent des participants étaient de modérément à très à l’aise pour conseiller les patients sur la consommation de cannabis à des fins récréatives. Les médecins étaient généralement en mesure d’identifier les populations de patients qui devraient éviter le cannabis et les effets secondaires du cannabis. Les médecins qui avaient pratiqué pendant plus de 10 ans étaient plus susceptibles d’identifier des effets secondaires que ceux qui avaient moins d’expérience. Conclusions: Les connaissances des médecins de famille sont insuffisantes et ils manquent souvent de confiance pour conseiller leurs patients sur la consommation récréative de cannabis. La plupart ne connaissent pas les outils d’évaluation, ce qui peut expliquer le manque de dépistage des troubles liés à la consommation de cannabis et d’identification des consommateurs vulnérables. Il est nécessaire d’accroître la recherche et l’éducation médicale ciblée concernant la consommation de cannabis à des fins récréatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of AddictionSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207