Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Cannabis Users: Patterns of Use and Perceived Efficacy.

ABSTRACT: Background: The political climate around Cannabis as a medicine is rapidly changing. Legislators are adopting policies regarding appropriate medical applications, while the paucity of research may make policy decisions around conditions for which Cannabis is an effective medicine difficult. Methods: An anonymous online survey was developed to query medical Cannabis users about the conditions they use Cannabis to treat, their use patterns, perception of efficacy, and physical and mental health. Participants were recruited through social media and Cannabis dispensaries in Washington State. Results: A total of 1429 participants identified as medical Cannabis users. The most frequently reported conditions for which they used Cannabis were pain (61.2%), anxiety (58.1%), depression (50.3%), headache/migraine (35.5%), nausea (27.4%), and muscle spasticity (18.4%). On average, participants reported an 86% reduction in symptoms as a result of Cannabis use; 59.8% of medical users reported using Cannabis as an alternative to pharmaceutical prescriptions. Global health scores were on par with the general population for mental health and physical health. Conclusions: While patient-reported outcomes favor strong efficacy for a broad range of symptoms, many medical users are using Cannabis without physician supervision and for conditions for which there is no formal research to support the use of Cannabis (e.g., depression and anxiety). Future research and public policy should attempt to reduce the incongruence between approved and actual use.

SUBMITTER: Sexton M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5549439 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Cannabis Users: Patterns of Use and Perceived Efficacy.

Sexton Michelle M Cuttler Carrie C Finnell John S JS Mischley Laurie K LK

Cannabis and cannabinoid research 20160601 1

<b>Background:</b> The political climate around Cannabis as a medicine is rapidly changing. Legislators are adopting policies regarding appropriate medical applications, while the paucity of research may make policy decisions around conditions for which Cannabis is an effective medicine difficult. <b>Methods:</b> An anonymous online survey was developed to query medical Cannabis users about the conditions they use Cannabis to treat, their use patterns, perception of efficacy, and physical and me ...[more]

PMID: 28861489

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2016, the Australian federal government passed legislation enabling a range of cannabis-based products to be prescribed to patients by registered healthcare professionals. An online survey conducted immediately prior to these legislative changes found that the vast majority of respondents at the time were illicitly sourcing cannabis plant matter, smoking was the preferred route of administration and mental health, chronic pain, and sleep conditions were the most frequently cited reasons for medical cannabis use. This manuscript reports the results of a follow-up survey conducted in 2018-2019, the Cannabis As Medicine Survey (CAMS-18). The goal of this second questionnaire was to examine patterns of use and consumer perspectives regarding medical cannabis use in Australia, 2 years after the introduction of legal access pathways. METHODS:Anonymous online cross-sectional survey with convenience sample, recruited mainly through online media between September 2018 and March 2019. Participants were adults (18 years or over) residing in Australia who reported using a cannabis product for self-identified therapeutic reasons during the preceding 12 months. The survey measured consumer characteristics, indications and patterns of medical cannabis use, routes and frequency of administration, perceived benefits and harms, experiences and preferred models of access to medical cannabis. RESULTS:Data were available for 1388 respondents. The main categories of condition being treated with medical cannabis were pain (36.4%), mental health (32.8%), sleep (9.2%), neurological (5.2%) and cancer (3.8%). Respondents reported using medical cannabis on 15.8 (11.2) days in the past 28, by inhaled (71.4%) or oral (26.5%) routes and spending AUD$82.27 ($101.27) per week. There were high levels of self-reported effectiveness, but also high rates of side effects. There was uncertainty regarding the composition of illicit cannabinoid products and concerns regarding their possible contamination. Few respondents (2.7%) had accessed legally prescribed medical cannabis, with the main perceived barriers being cost, disinterest from the medical profession and stigma regarding cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS:Chronic pain, mental health and sleep remain the main clinical conditions for which consumers report using medical cannabis. Despite 2 years of legal availability, most consumers in Australia reported accessing illicit cannabis products, with uncertainty regarding the quality or composition of cannabis products.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge about the health effects of e-cigarette use (or vaping) among past and current combustible cigarette users is limited. Several studies have assessed vaping-related adverse events (AEs) and beneficial health effects, however, most studies focused on AEs in general and examined only a few physiological changes that vapers experience. This study aims to explore self-reported AEs and perceived health changes due to e-cigarette use among Hungarian adult e-cigarette-only users (former smokers who switched completely to e-cigarette use) and dual users (smokers who use e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco cigarettes concomitantly).MethodsA cross-sectional, web-based survey of 1042 adult Hungarian e-cigarette users was conducted in 2015. Participants reported AEs and changes in physiological functions since they switched from smoking to e-cigarette use or while dually using e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. Confirmatory factor analysis with covariates was applied to explain perceived health changes due to e-cigarette-only use and dual use.ResultsDual users (17.6%) were significantly more likely to report AEs of vaping than e-cigarette-only users (26.2% vs. 11.8%, p?<?0.001). Experiencing health improvements were significantly more likely among e-cigarette-only users than for dual users for all surveyed physiological functions. E-cigarette-only users reported larger effects of vaping on sensory, physical functioning, and mental health factors compared to dual users. Self-reported changes in sensory and physical functioning were significantly higher among individuals using e-cigarettes more than a year and people who were past heavy smokers (smoked ?20 cigarettes per day). Gender was related to sensory improvement only; males reported greater improvement than females.ConclusionsThe majority of e-cigarette-only users reported more perceived beneficial changes in physiological functions and fewer AEs than dual users. Perceived short-term benefits of e-cigarette use may reinforce users despite the uncertainty of long-term health consequences. Health professionals should provide balanced information regarding the possible short- and long-term positive and negative health effects of e-cigarette use during consultations with patients.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough existing studies have described patterns of social media use in healthcare, most are focused on health professionals in one discipline. Population health requires a multi-disciplinary approach to ensure diversity and to include diverse stakeholders. To date, what is known about using social media in population health is focused on its potential as a communication tool. This study aims to investigate patterns of use and perceived value of social media usage among stakeholders in population health practice, policy, or research.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey of delegates attending the Singapore Population Health Conversations and Workshop. We designed a 24-item questionnaire to assess 1) social media use in terms of type of platform and frequency of use; 2) perceptions of social media relevance and impact on population health; and 3) top three areas in population health that would benefit from social media. We used descriptive and logistic regression analyses to assess the relationships between variables.ResultsOf the 308 survey respondents, 97.7% reported that they use social media in some form. Messaging (96.8%) was the most dominant activity when using social media. Challenges in implementing social media for population health were time investment by health care professionals (56.2%) and patient adoption (52.9%). The top three population health areas that would benefit most from using social media were the promotion of healthy behaviors (60.7%), community engagement (47.7%), and preventive care (40.6%). Older respondents (> = 40 years) were less likely to view social media as useful for the promotion of healthy behaviors (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.19-0.60). Non-social/healthcare professionals were more likely to consider social media to be useful for community engagement (OR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.10-2.76). For preventive care, older respondents (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.82) and non-social/healthcare professionals were less likely to view social media as useful (OR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38-0.97).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that it may be important to select the specific care areas that would benefit most from using social media. The time investment needed by population health professionals should be fully addressed in planning to maximize the application and potential value of social media.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been significant effort in attempting to use health care data. However, laws that protect patients' privacy have restricted data use because health care data contain sensitive information. Thus, discussions on privacy laws now focus on the active use of health care data beyond protection. However, current literature does not clarify the obstacles that make data usage and deidentification processes difficult or elaborate on users' needs for data linking from practical perspectives.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to investigate (1) the current status of data use in each medical area, (2) institutional efforts and difficulties in deidentification processes, and (3) users' data linking needs.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey. To recruit people who have used health care data, we publicized the promotion campaign and sent official documents to an academic society encouraging participation in the online survey.ResultsIn total, 128 participants responded to the online survey; 10 participants were excluded for either inconsistent responses or lack of demand for health care data. Finally, 118 participants' responses were analyzed. The majority of participants worked in general hospitals or universities (62/118, 52.5% and 51/118, 43.2%, respectively, multiple-choice answers). More than half of participants responded that they have a need for clinical data (82/118, 69.5%) and public data (76/118, 64.4%). Furthermore, 85.6% (101/118) of respondents conducted deidentification measures when using data, and they considered rigid social culture as an obstacle for deidentification (28/101, 27.7%). In addition, they required data linking (98/118, 83.1%), and they noted deregulation and data standardization to allow access to health care data linking (33/98, 33.7% and 38/98, 38.8%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the proportion of responded data needs and linking in groups that used health care data for either public purposes or commercial purposes.ConclusionsThis study provides a cross-sectional view from a practical, user-oriented perspective on the kinds of data users want to utilize, efforts and difficulties in deidentification processes, and the needs for data linking. Most users want to use clinical and public data, and most participants conduct deidentification processes and express a desire to conduct data linking. Our study confirmed that they noted regulation as a primary obstacle whether their purpose is commercial or public. A legal system based on both data utilization and data protection needs is required.

Project description:BackgroundPublic and medical interest in cannabidiol (CBD) has been rising, and CBD is now available from various sources. Research into the effects of low-dose CBD on outcomes like stress, anxiety, and sleep problems have been scarce, so we conducted an online survey of CBD users to better understand patterns of use, dose, and self-perceived effects of CBD.MethodsThe sample consisted of 387 current or past-CBD users who answered a 20-question online survey. The survey was sent out to CBD users through email databases and social media. Participants reported basic demographics, CBD use patterns, reasons for use, and effects on anxiety, sleep, and stress.ResultsThe sample (N = 387) consisted of 61.2% females, mostly between 25 and 54 years old (72.2%) and primarily based in the UK (77.4%). The top 4 reasons for using CBD were self-perceived anxiety (42.6%), sleep problems (42.5%), stress (37%), and general health and wellbeing (37%). Fifty-four per cent reported using less than 50 mg CBD daily, and 72.6% used CBD sublingually. Adjusted logistic models show females had lower odds than males of using CBD for general health and wellbeing [OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.72] and post-workout muscle-soreness [OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.24-0.91] but had higher odds of using CBD for self-perceived anxiety [OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.02-2.49] and insomnia [OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13-3.11]. Older individuals had lower odds of using CBD for general health and wellbeing, stress, post-workout sore muscles, anxiety, skin conditions, focusing, and sleep but had higher odds of using CBD for pain. Respondents reported that CBD use was effective for stress, sleep problems, and anxiety in those who used the drug for those conditions.ConclusionThis survey indicated that CBD users take the drug to manage self-perceived anxiety, stress, sleep, and other symptoms, often in low doses, and these patterns vary by demographic characteristics. Further research is required to understand how low doses, representative of the general user, might impact mental health symptoms like stress, anxiety, and sleep problems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions. METHODS:This study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection. RESULTS:The principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.

Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Cannabis Users: Patterns of Use and Perceived Efficacy.

Publications

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Cannabis Users: Patterns of Use and Perceived Efficacy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure