Jason Ricco1, Christine Danner1, Chrystian Pereira2, Ann M Philbrick2. 1. University of Minnesota Medical School, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health. 2. University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The United States has seen an evolving perspective on the medical use of cannabis in recent years. Although a majority of states have enacted medical cannabis programs, physicians practicing in these states report a lack of knowledge, lingering concerns, and a need for more training regarding medical cannabis. This study provides a current snapshot of medical cannabis education in an academic family medicine department in a state with a medical cannabis program. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all 134 faculty physicians and residents within a family medicine department to assess current knowledge and attitudes regarding medical cannabis. Study authors performed descriptive statistical analysis of the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 61 individuals to complete the survey, 34 were residents and 27 were faculty. Overall, respondents displayed poor understanding of the state's medical cannabis program as well as cannabis regulations. A majority of both faculty and residents reported low self-rated competency levels for medical cannabis efficacy, adverse effects, and safety using Likert scales (1 to 5; 1=low competency, 5=high competency). A majority of faculty (56%) expressed that they did not intend to certify patients for medical cannabis compared to only 33% of residents. Residents were statistically more likely to think of a patient who might benefit from medical cannabis compared to faculty (39% vs 11%, P=.004, chi-square). CONCLUSIONS: Increasingly, family physicians will be called on to provide informed patient counseling regarding medical cannabis. These results highlight a knowledge gap for family medicine learners in a changing practice landscape.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The United States has seen an evolving perspective on the medical use of cannabis in recent years. Although a majority of states have enacted medical cannabis programs, physicians practicing in these states report a lack of knowledge, lingering concerns, and a need for more training regarding medical cannabis. This study provides a current snapshot of medical cannabis education in an academic family medicine department in a state with a medical cannabis program. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all 134 faculty physicians and residents within a family medicine department to assess current knowledge and attitudes regarding medical cannabis. Study authors performed descriptive statistical analysis of the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 61 individuals to complete the survey, 34 were residents and 27 were faculty. Overall, respondents displayed poor understanding of the state's medical cannabis program as well as cannabis regulations. A majority of both faculty and residents reported low self-rated competency levels for medical cannabis efficacy, adverse effects, and safety using Likert scales (1 to 5; 1=low competency, 5=high competency). A majority of faculty (56%) expressed that they did not intend to certify patients for medical cannabis compared to only 33% of residents. Residents were statistically more likely to think of a patient who might benefit from medical cannabis compared to faculty (39% vs 11%, P=.004, chi-square). CONCLUSIONS: Increasingly, family physicians will be called on to provide informed patient counseling regarding medical cannabis. These results highlight a knowledge gap for family medicine learners in a changing practice landscape.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Robert F Wolff; Sohan Deshpande; Marcello Di Nisio; Steven Duffy; Adrian V Hernandez; J Christiaan Keurentjes; Shona Lang; Kate Misso; Steve Ryder; Simone Schmidlkofer; Marie Westwood; Jos Kleijnen Journal: JAMA Date: 2015 Jun 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272