Dataset Information

Medicinal cannabis: knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of Colombian psychiatrists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of cannabinoids in mental health has gained strength in recent years due to emerging scientific evidence and the lifting of prohibitionist laws that prevailed for years in many countries, including Colombia. This study describes the results of a survey of Colombian psychiatrists on some aspects of medicinal cannabis, such as attitudes towards its potential use, perceived knowledge, and beliefs surrounding its regulation and safety.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 145 psychiatrists in 14 territories of Colombia between November 2019 and July 2020. The survey consisted of 28 items on topics related to medicinal cannabis, including attitudes and clinical experience (4 items), perceived knowledge (4 items), indications for use in psychiatric pathologies (6 items), indications for use in nonpsychiatric pathologies (8 items), and concerns and awareness about safety and efficacy (6 items). The results were summarized using descriptive statistics. In addition, possible associations among variables were examined using Fisher's exact test.

Results

Eighty-two percent of the psychiatrists agreed that medical cannabis should be available for different medical conditions, and 73.1% stated that they wanted to be able to prescribe it. However, 66.2% said they did not know how to help their patients legally access it, and only 25% understood the legal status of medicinal cannabis in the country. The mental health indications that received the highest approval levels for cannabis use were insomnia (35.2%), anxiety disorders (29%), and agitation in dementia (18.6%). The greatest disapproval of cannabis use was indicated for schizophrenia, with 66.9%. The most approved nonpsychiatric medical conditions were cancer-related chronic pain (87.6%), chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting (78.6%), and chronic pain not associated with cancer (72.4%). Multinomial stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that female psychiatrists who did not agree with MC to treat psychiatric symptoms were more likely to agree with non-psychiatric use.

Conclusions

Our results showed that this sample of Colombian psychiatrists have a favorable attitude towards the prescription of medicinal cannabis; however, there is a serious lack of knowledge of the legal status of medicinal cannabis in the country and the methods through which patients can gain access to government-regulated products. Most of them approve the use of MC for nonpsychiatric conditions and, in general, disapprove of its use in mental illnesses. They generally consider medicinal cannabis as a safe treatment compared to other psychotropic drugs and medications with potential risk of dependence, such as opioids and/or benzodiazepines.

SUBMITTER: Orjuela-Rojas JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8259442 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number of jurisdictions allowing access to medicinal cannabis has been steadily increasing since the state of California introduced legislation in 1996. Although there is a high degree of legislative heterogeneity across jurisdictions, the involvement of a health professional is common among all. This places health professionals at the forefront of therapy, yet no systematic review of literature has offered insight into the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis.MethodsUsing a predetermined study protocol, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed up to the 1st August 2018. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied uniformly. Screening for relevancy, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias were completed by two independent investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using CASP criteria (qualitative) and a modified domain-based risk assessment tool (quantitative).ResultsOf the 15,775 studies retrieved, 106 underwent full-text review and of these, 26 were included. The overall risk of bias was considered low across all included studies. The general impression was that health professionals supported the use of medicinal cannabis in practice; however, there was a unanimous lack of self-perceived knowledge surrounding all aspects of medicinal cannabis. Health professionals also voiced concern regarding direct patient harms and indirect societal harms.ConclusionThis systematic review has offered a lens through which to view the existing literature surrounding the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis. These results are limited, however, by the implicit common-sense models of behaviour utilised by the included studies. Before strategies can be developed and implemented to change health professional behaviour, a more thorough understanding of the factors that underpin the delivery of medicinal cannabis is necessary.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers play a critical role in facilitating patient access to medical cannabis. However, previous surveys suggest only a minority of providers believe that medical cannabis confers benefits to patients. Significant new knowledge about the potential benefits and harms of medical cannabis has recently emerged. Understanding current attitudes and beliefs of providers may provide insight into the ongoing challenges they face as states expand access to medical cannabis.MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey of primary care providers in a large Minnesota-based healthcare system between January 23 and February 5, 2018. We obtained information about provider characteristics, attitudes and beliefs about medical cannabis, provider comfort level in answering patient questions about medical cannabis, and whether providers were interested in receiving additional education.ResultsSixty-two providers completed the survey (response rate 31%; 62/199). Seventy-six percent of respondents were physicians and the average age was 46.3 years. A majority of providers believed ("strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") that medical cannabis was a legitimate medical therapy (58.1%) and 38.7% believed that providers should be offering to patients for managing medical conditions. A majority (> 50%) of providers believed that medical cannabis was helpful for treating the qualifying medical conditions of cancer, terminal illness, and intractable pain. A majority of providers did not know if medical cannabis was effective for managing nearly one-half of the other state designated qualifying medical conditions. Few believed that medical cannabis improved quality of life domains. Over one-third of providers believed that medical cannabis interacted with medical therapies. One-half of providers were not ready to or did not want to answer patient questions about medical cannabis, and the majority of providers wanted to learn more about it.ConclusionsHealthcare providers generally believe that medical cannabis is a legitimate medical therapy. Provider knowledge gaps about the effectiveness of medical cannabis for state designated qualifying conditions need to be addressed, and accurate information about the potential for drug interactions needs to be disseminated to address provider concerns. Clinical trial data about how medical cannabis improves patient quality of life domains is desperately needed as this information can impact clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundAustralian pharmacists currently dispense a wide range of prescription-only cannabis-based medicines. Recent regulatory changes will expand the role of pharmacists, allowing certain low-dose cannabidiol products to be supplied without a prescription in pharmacies. This harmonises Australia with many other countries where cannabidiol products are readily available to consumers.AimTo examine Australian pharmacists' experience, knowledge and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis and their preparedness to supply over-the-counter low-dose cannabidiol products.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a 51-item on-line questionnaire that was informed by previous surveys of health professionals and assessed for face validity. Australian pharmacists were recruited to complete the survey between May and December 2021, primarily through professional pharmacy organisations. Pharmacists were included in the final dataset if they completed the demographic characteristics section and at least one additional section of the questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive and relational statistical tests.ResultsThere were 272 attempts to complete this survey and 217 responses included in the final dataset. Over half of the respondents (60.0%, 130/217) had dispensed at least one medicinal cannabis prescription during their career and 58.5% (127/217) had received at least one medicinal cannabis enquiry in the last fortnight. Only around half (53.9%, 117/217) felt comfortable supplying medicinal cannabis products and fewer (39.3%, 79/201) were confident discussing cannabis-related enquiries. More than half of the respondents (58.7%, 118/201) supported the provision of low-dose cannabidiol products through pharmacies. Two-thirds (67.8%, 80/118) of respondents achieved relatively low scores (< 60%) in the knowledge component of the survey. Most respondents (94.2%, 178/189) endorsed a need for further training in this area.ConclusionAustralian pharmacists tended to support medicinal cannabis availability and improved access to low-dose cannabidiol products via pharmacies. However, results highlight a need for improved training and education of pharmacists around cannabis-based medicines.

Project description:BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive form of brain stimulation. It has been used in many mental health institutions to treat mental disorders worldwide. However, comprehensive knowledge about rTMS is not yet widespread among psychiatrists. The present study assessed psychiatrists' knowledge and attitudes about rTMS in China and investigated related factors.MethodsA quantitative observational cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. The sample consisted of 522 psychiatrists. Multinomial logistic regression and multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore factors that contributed to psychiatrists' knowledge about rTMS. We also ascertained psychiatrists' attitudes about rTMS and provide recommendations for the more widespread use of rTMS.ResultsThe majority of respondents (86.4%) reported having access to rTMS at their institution. A total of 379 psychiatrists (72.6%) knew that rTMS was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression. Univariate logistic regression indicated that psychiatrists who were older, had a senior professional title, worked more years, had an onsite clinical rTMS program in their hospital, and received formal training in theory and application (all p < 0.05) were more likely to know that rTMS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of depression. The percentages of respondents who knew most or all indications, the mechanism of action, parameter settings, adverse reactions were 51.9, 40.2, 27.4, and 41.4%. Linear regression showed that formal training in rTMS theory and practice were associated with higher knowledge scores (all p < 0.05). Most of the subjects had negative attitudes about using rTMS to treat mental disorders. When asked about their attitudes about continuing rTMS education, nearly all of the respondents indicated that they were willing to pursue continuing training in rTMS in the future.ConclusionsMany psychiatrists had an insufficient level of knowledge about rTMS and negative attitudes about rTMS. Psychiatrists who had formal rTMS training experience had higher levels of rTMS knowledge. rTMS training and relevant policy making should be strengthened.