International perspective on physician knowledge, attitude and practices related to medical cannabis

INTRODUCTION

The United States government first began regulating cannabis use in 1937, and since that time the medical utility of cannabis has been open to debate ¹. In 1970, cannabis acquired designation of Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act ², a classification indicating an absence of medical value and a high potential for abuse. Similar legal restriction throughout the world had limited the overall accessibility and availability of cannabis for all uses ³. As of February 2023, “medical cannabis” has been approved in 38 states, (including the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico) in the United State and 41 countries worldwide ³.

Medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis, including its constituents (i.e., delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and other cannabinoids), as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy. Cannabis contains a diverse group of cannabinoids ⁴, with the reported source of more than 450 chemical entities, of which about 100 are cannabinoid related moieties ^5-8. Medical cannabis term is mostly limited to the use of few cannabinoids (THC, CBD) out of the vast array of existing psychoactive chemicals in cannabis. There is some evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting specific pain syndromes, and spasticity from multiple sclerosis ^9,10. Also “very low” strength evidence is available to support its use for AIDS wasting syndrome, epilepsy, Crohn disease, hepatitis C, Crohn disease, Parkinson disease, Tourette syndrome, and glaucoma ^9,11-13. The existing evidence is from studies of THC and nabilone that have been extrapolated to “medical cannabis.” In contrast, current evidence supports, at minimum, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders ^14-17.

Approximately 2 million individuals in the United States utilized medical cannabis in 2019 through state-licensed dispensaries or home cultivation ¹⁸. In this rapidly shifting landscape of medical cannabis over the last decade, the role of physician’s knowledge, attitudes and practices has become essential given that it is touted as a bonafide medical treatment. Physicians have a duty to act in the best interest of the patient and to serve as a medical expert who can guide patients in making medical decisions while balancing risks vs benefits of a particular treatment modality ¹⁹. Little is known of the current knowledge, attitudes and practices of physicians towards medical cannabis and the circumstances lend themselves to the entering of bias. The individual physician’s pre-existing beliefs and attitude toward cannabis influences the judgment they render with regards to its therapeutic potential.²⁰

In addition to lack of robust evidence available at the current time for medical use of cannabis, numerous other factors which impacts attitudes of physician including, lack of consistency in the list approved indications across states and countries ^21,22, significant variability in chemical constituents (components, purity and contaminants) of medical cannabis, discrepancy regarding its legal status at the federal and state level which in turn impacts medical practice ^12,23-26. In this dynamically shifting landscape, the role of physician’s knowledge, attitudes and practices related to medical cannabis is important. Prior studies have shown that physicians rarely discuss the role of medical cannabis with patients. ²⁷ There is also recognition that clinical training regarding medical cannabis is wanting in medical schools. ²⁸ This study aimed to characterize knowledge, attitude, and practices of international physicians regarding the use of medical cannabis.

Methods

Results

A total of 323 physicians responded to the survey. Mean age was 35.4± 9.5 years, with 10.0 ±8.6 years of clinical experience. 53 percent of participants were female. Details of demographics of participants, their practice settings, self-reporting proficiency, experience with cannabis prescription and characteristic of patient populations composition is detailed in Table 1. Responses were received from physicians in 17 countries namely, Australia (3), Canada (1), Croatia (70), Egypt (50), El Salvador (1), India (31), Indonesia (5), Peru (2), Poland (23), Portugal (62), Qatar (1), Russia (1), Saudi Arabia (2), Spain (1), South Africa (1), Turkey (62), United States (36).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to better characterize physician’s knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors regarding medical cannabis – and to elucidate potential factors influencing practice. The results are in line with the idea that scientifically validated knowledge of medical cannabis is lacking. This international cohort of survey responders suggests that overall physicians are unclear of the potential utility of medical cannabis outside conditions related to cancer or terminal illnesses. Further, that the addictive potential of cannabis is not well understood speaks to the insufficient dissemination of the current state of knowledge. That one in five physicians significantly underestimated the addictive potential of daily cannabis use is cause for concern, as was highlighted by subsequent findings.

These findings are consistent with other studies examining physician knowledge related to medical cannabis that consistently show that there’s a significant gap in physician knowledge and training about medical cannabis. ^20,29-31 In prior survey studies, approximately 60% of physicians noted that they did not receive any education regarding medical cannabis.^31,32 In a study among Israeli primary care physicians, 63% of respondents endorsed having little knowledge and 75% noted a need for greater education regarding medical cannabis.³¹ In another study, only 51% of clinicians (including pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) reported completing any formal training on medical cannabis.³³ In a national survey of US medical school deans, residents and fellows from 145 schools, 66.7% deans reported that their graduates were not educated about medical cannabis, 84.9% residents noted receiving no education on medical cannabis in medical school or residency, and only 9% of medical school documented medical cannabis education in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory database.³⁴

When assessing overall willingness to recommend medical cannabis to treat a variety of severe disorders a large amount of heterogeneity was noted. Of the 20 clinical vignettes/disorders presented many responders were overall willing to recommend medical cannabis for chemotherapy-induced effects, chronic spasticity associated with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS)/amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and HIV-induced cachexia.

Current evidence-based recommendation by the medical community consistently prohibits the widespread use of cannabis for neurologic and psychiatric disorders. The American Academy of Neurology published ‘systematic review’, with the conclusion that oral cannabis extract and THC ‘are probably effective’ in reducing patient-centered measures and spasticity-related pain. The evidence was noted to be insufficient for tremors, urinary dysfunction, Parkinson dyskinesia, and Tourette’s syndrome ^35,36. The American Psychiatric Association has issued an official action in their ‘position statement in Opposition to Cannabis as medicine’ - which concluded “there is no current scientific evidence that cannabis is in any way beneficial for the treatment of any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, current evidence supports, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders” ³⁷.

At odds with the above cited guidelines - approximately 40% of responders suggested a willingness to recommend medical cannabis for conditions for which guidelines prohibit use. 20-30% of responders endorsed willingness to use medical cannabis in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), autism and tic disorder. Conversely less than half of responders correctly identified the probability of addiction after daily use of cannabis. Taken together, the findings consistently support the notion that there is a severe gap in domain-specific knowledge related to marijuana among physicians. The inconsistency of individual physician practice extends in the underutilization of medical cannabis where a reasonable evidence base exists. While the AAN guidelines overall endorse using medical cannabis for severe spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS)/amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS), only 1 in 2 physicians expressed a willingness to act in accordance with the medical society’s guideline. In the study among Israeli primary care physicians, respondents were also found to be less likely to initiate medical cannabis but were willing to renew a prescription for medical conditions, excluding PTSD, chronic pain, and fibromyalgia.³¹

We have also examined physician’s personal beliefs about medical cannabis impacts clinical practice and their willingness to recommend medical cannabis in this cohort³⁸. Querying individual beliefs about cannabis and its clinical value - just more than half of physicians endorsed a willingness to use medical cannabis for themselves if diagnosed with a qualifying condition. Physicians with a personal belief in favor of the utility of cannabis were more likely to recommend cannabis for other medical conditions (Supplementary Table 1). We have previously showed that physician’s personal belief regarding utility of medical cannabis was significantly associated with willingness to recommend medical marijuana, even after controlling for knowledge related to medical cannabis ³⁸. This is consistent with a study among primary care physicians where willingness to recommend medical cannabis increased significantly for respondents who believed that medical cannabis was effective.³¹ In the absence of adequately powered randomized controlled trials, this belief regarding utility of medical cannabis may be driven by anecdotal reports or misinformation in the lay media.

Taken together the findings suggests that medical decisions related to medical cannabis are guided by clinical experience and personal beliefs amidst insufficient evidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this situation prompts the need for individual physicians to implement heuristic and non-scientific based reasoning to arrive at the decision to recommend or use medical cannabis. An important clarifying comment is that the results do not suggest that clinician’s clinical recommendation or judgment about utilizing medical cannabis is impaired – they do suggest that there are other factors impacting a decision to withhold or propose medical cannabis as a course of treatment. Concordantly, the variance accounted for this predictive model was approximately 10% for the aggregate of clinical cases ³⁸. Notwithstanding, that is enough to account for potential errors in treatment decision making that is not acceptable in the standard of care and is worth further investigation and attention by the global medical community.

The results of this study need to be viewed in the context of its limitations. The study was observational in nature and based on responses from physicians in countries with various legal statuses of medical cannabis. Physician’s prior experience with medical cannabis was not systematically assessed. These limitations notwithstanding, the study points to the importance of addressing the gap in knowledge and medical training about medical cannabis, and the need for guidelines to inform physician practices related to medical cannabis.

Conflicts of interest

The authors do not have any financial conflicts of interest directly related to this manuscript. RR is funded by National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R01DA054314, R21DA054491), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) (R21AT010763) and has received research support from GW Pharmaceuticals (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) and Neurocrine Biosciences.

Contributions

RR designed the study. SAS and RR wrote the report. SAS analyzed the data. All authors contributed important intellectual content and approved the final version to be submitted.