Differences in Cannabidiol-Related Attitudes and Practice Behaviors Between U.S. Primary Care Physicians Practicing in a Single Health Care System Across States With and Without Marijuana Legalization.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-23 DOI:10.1089/can.2023.0011
Pravesh Sharma, Robert P Wilfahrt, Kandace Lackore, Christopher J Hammond
{"title":"Differences in Cannabidiol-Related Attitudes and Practice Behaviors Between U.S. Primary Care Physicians Practicing in a Single Health Care System Across States With and Without Marijuana Legalization.","authors":"Pravesh Sharma, Robert P Wilfahrt, Kandace Lackore, Christopher J Hammond","doi":"10.1089/can.2023.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Dramatic shifts in marijuana laws, along with federal deregulation of hemp with the 2018 Farm Bill, have resulted in increased availability and use of cannabidiol (CBD) supplements throughout the United States (US). Given the rapid increase in CBD use in the U.S. general population, in this study, we aim to characterize primary care physician (PCP) attitudes and practice behaviors and to assess whether differences in provider attitudes and behaviors vary as a function of marijuana legalization (ML) status in the state of practice. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Data are from an online provider survey on CBD supplement-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors administered to 508 PCPs as part of a larger mixed methods study. Participating PCPs were recruited from the Mayo Clinic Healthcare Network and provided medical care in primary care settings across four U.S. states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona). <b>Results:</b> The survey response rate was 45.4% (<i>n</i>=236/508). According to providers, CBD was frequently brought up in PCP settings, typically by patients. PCPs were generally hesitant to screen for or discuss CBD with their patients and identified multiple barriers to open patient-provider dialogue about CBD. PCPs practicing in states that had passed ML were more receptive to patients using CBD supplements, whereas PCPs practicing in states that had not passed ML were more concerned about CBD-related side effects. Regardless of state ML status, most PCPs did not feel that they should be recommending CBD supplements to their patients. Most PCPs reported believing that CBD was unhelpful for most conditions for which it is marketed, with chronic non-cancer pain and anxiety/stress being exceptions. PCP respondents generally felt that they had insufficient knowledge/training around CBD. <b>Conclusions:</b> Results from this mixed methods study show that PCPs practicing in the U.S. rarely screen for or discuss CBD use with their patients and report several barriers to engage in proactive CBD-focused practice behaviors. Furthermore, survey results show that some PCP attitudes, practice behaviors, and barriers vary as a function of state ML status. These findings may guide medical education efforts and inform primary care practice modifications aimed at enhancing screening and monitoring of patient CBD use by PCPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":"1038-1047"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2023.0011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Dramatic shifts in marijuana laws, along with federal deregulation of hemp with the 2018 Farm Bill, have resulted in increased availability and use of cannabidiol (CBD) supplements throughout the United States (US). Given the rapid increase in CBD use in the U.S. general population, in this study, we aim to characterize primary care physician (PCP) attitudes and practice behaviors and to assess whether differences in provider attitudes and behaviors vary as a function of marijuana legalization (ML) status in the state of practice. Materials and Methods: Data are from an online provider survey on CBD supplement-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors administered to 508 PCPs as part of a larger mixed methods study. Participating PCPs were recruited from the Mayo Clinic Healthcare Network and provided medical care in primary care settings across four U.S. states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona). Results: The survey response rate was 45.4% (n=236/508). According to providers, CBD was frequently brought up in PCP settings, typically by patients. PCPs were generally hesitant to screen for or discuss CBD with their patients and identified multiple barriers to open patient-provider dialogue about CBD. PCPs practicing in states that had passed ML were more receptive to patients using CBD supplements, whereas PCPs practicing in states that had not passed ML were more concerned about CBD-related side effects. Regardless of state ML status, most PCPs did not feel that they should be recommending CBD supplements to their patients. Most PCPs reported believing that CBD was unhelpful for most conditions for which it is marketed, with chronic non-cancer pain and anxiety/stress being exceptions. PCP respondents generally felt that they had insufficient knowledge/training around CBD. Conclusions: Results from this mixed methods study show that PCPs practicing in the U.S. rarely screen for or discuss CBD use with their patients and report several barriers to engage in proactive CBD-focused practice behaviors. Furthermore, survey results show that some PCP attitudes, practice behaviors, and barriers vary as a function of state ML status. These findings may guide medical education efforts and inform primary care practice modifications aimed at enhancing screening and monitoring of patient CBD use by PCPs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在大麻合法化和未合法化的州中,在单一医疗保健系统中执业的美国初级保健医生在大麻二酚相关态度和执业行为方面的差异。
导言:随着 2018 年《农业法案》(Farm Bill)对大麻的联邦管制的放松,大麻二酚(CBD)补充剂在美国各地的供应量和使用量大幅增加。鉴于 CBD 的使用在美国普通人群中迅速增加,在本研究中,我们旨在描述初级保健医生(PCP)的态度和执业行为,并评估提供者的态度和行为差异是否因执业所在州的大麻合法化(ML)状况而有所不同。材料和方法:数据来自对 508 名初级保健医生进行的关于 CBD 补充剂相关态度、信念和行为的在线医疗服务提供者调查,这是一项大型混合方法研究的一部分。参与调查的初级保健医生是从梅奥诊所医疗保健网络中招募的,他们在美国四个州(明尼苏达州、威斯康星州、佛罗里达州和亚利桑那州)的初级保健机构提供医疗服务。研究结果调查回复率为 45.4%(n=236/508)。据医疗服务提供者称,CBD 经常在初级保健医生的场合被提起,通常是由患者提起。初级保健医生普遍对筛查 CBD 或与患者讨论 CBD 感到犹豫不决,并指出了患者与医护人员就 CBD 进行公开对话的多重障碍。在已通过 ML 的州执业的初级保健医生更乐于接受患者使用 CBD 补充剂,而在尚未通过 ML 的州执业的初级保健医生则更担心 CBD 的相关副作用。无论各州的 ML 状况如何,大多数初级保健医生都认为他们不应该向病人推荐 CBD 补充剂。大多数初级保健医生认为,CBD 对市场上销售的大多数疾病都没有帮助,但慢性非癌症疼痛和焦虑/压力除外。受访的初级保健医生普遍认为,他们对 CBD 的了解/培训不足。结论:这项混合方法研究的结果表明,在美国执业的初级保健医生很少筛查或与患者讨论 CBD 的使用情况,并报告了在采取以 CBD 为重点的积极实践行为时遇到的一些障碍。此外,调查结果显示,一些初级保健医生的态度、执业行为和障碍因各州的 ML 状态而异。这些发现可为医学教育工作提供指导,并为初级保健实践中旨在加强初级保健医生对患者使用 CBD 的筛查和监测的修改提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.90%
发文量
164
期刊最新文献
Drug Interactions in People on Cannabidiol: Is There Cause for Concern? Federal Courts Will No Longer Need to Follow the DEA's Interpretation of Cannabis-Related Law. Minor Cannabinoid Profile of Unregulated Cannabidiol Products. Technology-Based Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Decreasing Cannabis Use in People with Psychosis: A Systematic Review Update. Biological Response after 14-Day Cannabidiol and Propylene Glycol Inhalation in Sprague-Dawley Rats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1