Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional and Prospective Comparison of Medicinal Cannabis Users and Controls on Self-Reported Health.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Despite widespread legalization, the impact of medicinal cannabis use on patient-level health and quality of life (QOL) has not been carefully evaluated. The objective of this study was to characterize self-reported demographics, health characteristics, QOL, and health care utilization of Cannabis Users compared with Controls. Methods: A longitudinal, cross-sectional web-based survey study was completed between April 2016 and February 2018. Study participants (n=1276) were a convenience sample of either patients with a diagnosed health condition or caregivers of a patient with a diagnosed health condition registered with the Realm of Caring Foundation (a nonprofit organization dedicated to therapeutic cannabis research and education). Participants were invited through e-mail to complete follow-up assessments every 3 months with 33% of participants completing one or more prospective follow-ups. Assessments included self-reported demographics, health care utilization, medication use, pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and QOL. Cannabis Users (n=808) were compared with Controls (n=468) using negative binomial regression and linear mixed effects models testing the effect of initiation, cessation, and maintenance of medicinal cannabis use. Results: Cannabis Users self-reported significantly better QOL [t(1054)=-4.19, p<0.001], greater health satisfaction [t(1045)=-4.14, p<0.001], improved sleep [children: t(224)=2.90, p<0.01; adults: [t(758)=3.03, p<0.01], lower average pain severity [t(1150)=2.34, p<0.05], lower anxiety [t(1151)=4.38, p<0.001], and lower depression [t(1210)=5.77, p<0.001] compared with Controls. Cannabis Users reported using fewer prescription medications (rate ratio [RR]=0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96) and were less likely to have a past-month emergency department visit (RR=0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.84) or hospital admission (RR=0.54; 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). Controls who initiated cannabis use after baseline showed significant health improvements at follow-up, and the magnitude of improvement mirrored the between-group differences observed at baseline. Conclusions: Cannabis use was associated with improved health and QOL. Longitudinal testing suggests that group differences may be due to the medicinal use of cannabis. Although bias related to preexisting beliefs regarding the health benefits of cannabis in this sample should be considered, these findings indicate that clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of defined cannabinoid products for specific health conditions are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Schlienz NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8713273 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveMultiple clinical trials fail to identify clinically measurable health benefits of daily multivitamin and multimineral (MVM) consumption in the general adult population. Understanding the determinants of widespread use of MVMs may guide efforts to better educate the public about effective nutritional practices. The objective of this study was to compare self-reported and clinically measurable health outcomes among MVM users and non-users in a large, nationally representative adult civilian non-institutionalised population in the USA surveyed on the use of complementary health practices.DesignCross-sectional analysis of the effect of MVM consumption on self-reported overall health and clinically measurable health outcomes.ParticipantsAdult MVM users and non-users from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (n=21 603).Primary and secondary outcome measuresFive psychological, physical, and functional health outcomes: (1) self-rated health status, (2) needing help with routine needs, (3) history of 10 chronic diseases, (4) presence of 19 health conditions in the past 12 months, and (5) Kessler 6-Item (K6) Psychological Distress Scale to measure non-specific psychological distress in the past month.ResultsAmong 4933 adult MVM users and 16 670 adult non-users, MVM users self-reported 30% better overall health than non-users (adjusted OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.46; false discovery rate adjusted p<0.001). There were no differences between MVM users and non-users in history of 10 chronic diseases, number of present health conditions, severity of current psychological distress on the K6 Scale and rates of needing help with daily activities. No effect modification was observed after stratification by sex, education, and race.ConclusionsMVM users self-reported better overall health despite no apparent differences in clinically measurable health outcomes. These results suggest that widespread use of multivitamins in adults may be a result of individuals' positive expectation that multivitamin use leads to better health outcomes or a self-selection bias in which MVM users intrinsically harbour more positive views regarding their health.

Project description:BackgroundThere is substantial evidence that ill-health is a major cause of impoverishment in developing countries. Major illnesses can have a serious economic impact on poor households through treatment costs and income loss. However, available methods for measuring the impact of ill-health on household welfare display several shortcomings and new methods are thus needed. To understand the potential complex impact of major illnesses on household livelihoods, a study on poverty and illness was conducted in rural Cambodia, as part of an international comparative research project. A cross-sectional survey was performed to identify households affected by major illness for further in-depth interviews.Methodology and principal findings5,975 households in three rural health districts were randomly selected through a two-stage cluster sampling and interviewed. 27% of the households reported at least one member with a serious illness in the year preceding the survey and 15% of the household members reported suffering from at least one serious illness. The most reported conditions include common tropical infectious diseases, chronic diseases (notably hypertension and heart diseases) and road traffic accidents. Such conditions were particularly concentrated among the poor, children under five, women, and the elderly. Poor women often reported complications related to pregnancy and delivery as serious illnesses.Conclusions and significanceDespite some methodological limitations, this study provides new information on the frequency of self-reported serious illnesses among the rural Cambodia's population, which serves as a basis for further in-depth investigation on 'major illnesses' and their economic consequences on poor households. This can in turn help policy makers to formulate appropriate interventions to protect the poor from the financial burden associated with ill-health. Our findings suggest that every year a considerable proportion of rural population in Cambodia, especially the poor and vulnerable, are affected by serious illnesses, both communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid diffusion of the internet has decreased consumer reliance on health care providers for health information and facilitated the patients' ability to be an agent in control of their own health. However, empirical evidence is limited regarding the effects of health-related internet use among older adults, which is complicated by the proliferation of online health and medical sources of questionable scientific accuracy.ObjectiveWe explore the effects of health-related internet use, education, and eHealth literacy on medical encounters and patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes are categorized into two dimensions: (1) self-reported health problem and (2) affective distress (feeling worried and anxious) due to information obtained. We were particularly interested in whether education and eHealth literacy moderate the association between perceived strain in medical encounters and patient-reported outcomes.MethodsOur study sample consisted of online panel members who have used the internet as a resource for health information, randomly drawn from one of the largest probability-based online research panels. This paper specifically reports results obtained from older panel members (age≥60 years: n=194). First, we examined descriptive statistics and bivariate associations (Pearson correlations and independent samples t tests). We used hierarchical ordinary least squares regression analyses by running separate regressions for each patient-reported outcome. In model 1, we entered the main effects. In model 2, technology and medical encounter variables were included. Model 3 added the statistical interaction terms.ResultsAge (β=-.17; P=.02), gender (β=-.22; P=.01), and medical satisfaction (β=-.28; P=.01) were significant predictors of self-reported health problems. Affective distress was positively predicted by gender (β=.13; P=.05) and satisfaction with medical encounters (β=.34; P<.001) but negatively predicted by education (β=-.18; P=.03) and eHealth literacy (β=-.32; P=.01). The association between experiencing a health problem in relation to health-related internet use and perception of strained medical encounters was greater among respondents with lower levels of education (β=-.55; P=.04). There was also a significant interaction between education and eHealth literacy in predicting the level of affective distress (β=-.60; P=.05), which indicated that higher levels of education predicted lower averages of feeling anxiety and worry despite lower eHealth literacy. Older women reported higher averages of affective distress (β=.13; P=.05), while older men reported higher averages of experiencing a self-reported health problem (β=-.22; P=.01).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence for the effect of health-related internet use on patient-reported outcomes with implications for medical encounters. The results could be used to guide educational and eHealth literacy interventions for older individuals.

Project description:BackgroundWith advancements in and the evolution of the medical field, several methods and surgical techniques have been developed for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Generally, we can categorize these strategies into two broad groups: autologous reconstruction and implant-based reconstruction. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction rate between these groups, considering age, timing of breast reconstruction, body mass index (BMI), major complications, and the need for radiotherapy or chemotherapy.Materials and methodsAll the patients who underwent a mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction surgery at our institution between August 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017, were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire. To compare the quality of life and complication rate between the autologous and implant-based reconstruction groups, data were collected from specific patients. All participants completed the Arabic version of the postoperative reconstruction module.ResultsAmong 61 patients, 43 (70.5%) completed the two domains of the BREAST-Q questionnaire, about the satisfaction with the implanted breast and satisfaction with the surgical outcome. These patients were divided into two groups: autologous (n = 21) and implant-based (n = 22) groups. The mean score of satisfaction with the implanted breast was 43.5 for the autologous group and 39.6 for the implant-based group. For the surgical outcome, the scores for the autologous and implant-based groups were 45.4 and 56.0, respectively. However, there was neither a statistical significance in the satisfaction with the implanted breast nor the surgical outcome between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough there are many different surgical techniques to reconstruct a breast after mastectomy, there is still no specific surgical method that is perfect or well-suited for all patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. In our study, we found that there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the ABR and IBR group.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Surveys are a common way to measure annoyance due to road traffic noise, but the method has some draw-backs. Survey context, question wording and answer alternatives could affect participation and answers and could have implications when comparing studies and/or performing pooled analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in annoyance reporting due to road traffic noise in two types of surveys of which one was introduced broadly and the other with the clearly stated aim of investigating noise and health. METHODS: Data was collected from two surveys carried out in the municipality of Malmö, southern Sweden in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2612 and n = 3810). The first survey stated an aim of investigating residential environmental exposure, especially noise and health. The second survey was a broad public health survey stating a broader aim. The two surveys had comparable questions regarding noise annoyance, although one used a 5-point scale and the other a 4-point scale. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the average road and railway noise (LAeq,24h) at the participants' residential address. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for annoyance in relation to noise exposure. RESULTS: Annoyance at least once a week due to road traffic noise was significantly more prevalent in the survey investigating environment and health compared to the public health survey at levels > 45 dB(A), but not at lower exposure levels. However no differences in annoyance were found when comparing the extreme alternatives "never" and "every day". In the study investigating environment and health, "Noise sensitive" persons were more likely to readily respond to the survey and were more annoyed by road traffic noise compared to the other participants in that survey. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in annoyance reporting between the two surveys were mainly due to different scales, suggesting that extreme alternatives are to prefer before dichotomization when comparing results between the two. Although some findings suggested that noise-sensitive individuals were more likely to respond to the survey investigating noise and health, we could not find convincing evidence that contextual differences affected either answers or participation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Substantial research has found that women assess their health as poor relative to men, but the reasons for this are not fully understood. Military women are characterised by good health and the ability to work in an archetypically male culture. Thus, studies on the gender pattern of self-reported health in military personnel could generate hypotheses for future research on the possible associations between gender and health. However, such studies are rare and limited to a few countries. The aim of this study was to examine self-reported physical and mental health in Norwegian military women. METHODS:We compared responses on self-reported health of 1068 active duty military women in Norway to those of active duty military men (n?=?8100). Further, we compared the military women to civilian women working in the Norwegian Armed Forces (n?=?1081). Participants were stratified into three age groups: 20-29; 30-39; and 40-60?years. We used Pearson Chi-square tests, Students t-tests and regression models to assess differences between the groups. RESULTS:The military women in our study reported physical illness and injuries equal to those of military men, but more military women used pain relieving and psychotropic drugs. More military women aged 20-29 and 30-39?years reported mental health issues than military men of the same age. In the age group 30-39?years, twice as many military women assessed their health as poor compared to military men. In the age group 40-60?years, more military women than men reported musculoskeletal pain. Military women used less smokeless tobacco than military men, but there were few differences in alcohol consumption and smoking. Military women appeared to be more physically healthy than civilian women, but we found few differences in mental health between these two groups. CONCLUSION:Most military women reported physical symptoms equal to those of military men, but there were differences between the genders in mental health and drug use. More favourable health compared to civilian women was most evident in the youngest age group and did not apply to mental health.

Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional and Prospective Comparison of Medicinal Cannabis Users and Controls on Self-Reported Health.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets