Most Responsible Providers’ Acceptance and Perceptions of Nabilone and THC/CBD Oil for Dementia Behaviours in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to explore most responsible providers’ acceptance and perceptions of prescribing nabilone and authorizing THC/CBD oil for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in people living with dementia. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to 9 most responsible providers (MRP) of residents with dementia residing in long-term care settings. The participant sample included 8 nurse practitioners and 1 physician. Results: Data were analysed using survey outcome categories: MRP acceptance of nabilone for BPSD; MRP perception of nabilone; MRP acceptance of THC/CBD oil for BPSD; and MRP perceptions of THC/CBD oil. Participants considered BPSD to be managed somewhat well (77.8%) or very well (22.2%) in their resident population. More than half (66.7%) of participants have previously prescribed nabilone to manage BPSD, and 55.6% have trialed THC/CBD oil. Only 12.5% reported they were prepared to answer a resident or family member’s questions regarding nabilone “a great deal” (0% for THC/CBD oil), and 37.5% reported “quite a bit”. However, participants indicated they were less prepared to answer questions regarding THC/CBD oil. The participants felt that nabilone prescription for BPSD could “somewhat improve” quality-of-life indicators including physical functioning (71.4%); energy levels (57.1%); mood (100%); enjoyment of life (100%); social engagement (85.7%); ability to perform activities of daily living (57.1%); and sense of hope (83.3%). Conclusion: Participants believed that nabilone and THC/CBD could improve quality-of-life outcomes in their residents living with dementia, including physical functioning and mood outcomes. Most participants believed that nabilone and THC/CBD oil could effectively treat BPSD, however, some participants reported a lack of confidence in answering resident or family questions about cannabinoid treatments. Further research is required to understand MRP acceptance and perceptions of specific cannabinoid products for BPSD in long-term care settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".