Understanding the epidemiology and perceived efficacy of cannabis use in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The belief that cannabis has analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties continues to attract patients with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain towards its use. However, the role that cannabis will play in the management of chronic MSK pain remains to be determined. This study examined 1) the rate, patterns of use, and self-reported efficacy of cannabis use among patients with chronic MSK pain and 2) the interest and potential barriers to cannabis use among patients with chronic MSK pain not currently using cannabis. METHODS: Self-reported cannabis use and perceived efficacy were prospectively collected from chronic MSK pain patients presenting to the Orthopaedic Clinic at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. The primary dependent variable was current or past use of cannabis to manage chronic MSK pain; bivariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify patient characteristics independently associated with this outcome. Secondary outcomes were summarized descriptively, including self-perceived efficacy among cannabis users, and interest as well as barriers to cannabis use among cannabis non-users. RESULTS: The sample included 629 patients presenting with chronic MSK pain (mean age: 56±15.7 years; 56% female). Overall, 144 (23%) reported past or present cannabis use to manage their MSK pain, with 63.7% perceiving cannabis as very or somewhat effective and 26.6% considering it as slightly effective. The strongest predictor of cannabis use in this study population was a history of recreational cannabis use (OR 12.7, p<0.001). Among cannabis non-users (N=489), 65% expressed interest in using cannabis to manage their chronic MSK pain, but common barriers to use included lack of knowledge regarding access, use and evidence, and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: One in five patients presenting to an orthopaedic surgeon with chronic MSK pain are using or have used cannabis with the specific intent to manage their pain, and most report it to be effective. Among non-users, two-thirds reported an interest in using cannabis to manage their MSK pain, but common barriers to use existed. Future double-blind placebo-controlled trials are required to understand if this reported efficacy is accurate, and what role, if any, cannabis may play in the management of chronic MSK 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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".