Perceptions of Cannabis Use: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Rheumatology Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Some rheumatology patients use or contemplate using cannabis, however, may not be transparent about use with their providers. The objective of this qualitative descriptive study was to describe beliefs, perceptions, and learning needs of adults with rheumatic conditions regarding the use of cannabis products. METHODS: Purposive sampling was conducted through a rheumatology clinic and sought participants who were using or thinking about using cannabis. Two online focus groups based on cannabis use patterns (non-users and users) were conducted separately. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Three research team members read the transcripts independently to identify initial codes and themes. Data saturation was reached with the interviews. RESULTS: We recruited 12 participants between 52 and 85 years old. The first theme was pain and desperation. Stigma was the second theme with a perception of physician opposition to cannabis, and the reluctance of many participants to discuss cannabis use with physicians. The final theme was a need for information and a general lack of trustworthy and credible sources. Users were willing to try cannabis even if they still had questions. CONCLUSION: Rheumatology patients are open to using cannabis due to the burden and suffering associated with pain. They remain silent on the topic, however, because of stigma and lack of engagement from health care professionals, particularly physicians. Patients voiced a strong need for information regarding cannabis and want healthcare providers to initiate discussion. These findings are clinically relevant to the management of rheumatic conditions and the promotion of therapeutic relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".