4.7 Article

Polish Physicians' Perspectives on Medical Cannabis Policy and Educational Needs: Results of An Online Survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194545

关键词

medical cannabis; Poland; physicians; perspectives; survey; cannabinoids; education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research shows that most Polish physicians lack education on medical cannabis and feel inadequate in counseling patients. They express a strong desire for clear guidelines to help them utilize cannabinoids in clinical practice.
(1) Background: In November 2017, medical cannabis was legalized in Poland. Until now, there have been no studies conducted to examine the perspectives of Polish physicians about their preferences regarding medical cannabis legal status and educational needs. (2) Methods: The survey was a self-developed online questionnaire with 57 participants. Participation was voluntary. The link was shared through a personal network of medical doctors, regional medical chambers, and with doctors attending palliative care courses organized by our research group. Results: Between June and October 2020, 173 HCPs from Poland completed the survey. More than half of the study participants never received any education on medical cannabis (60.1%); 71.1% declared their knowledge was insufficient to counsel patients about medical cannabis use. The majority claimed that they would like to be able to answer patient questions (92.4%); 93.1% declared a need to create clear guidelines for using cannabinoids in clinical practice. Furthermore, 71.7% believed that medicines containing cannabinoids and 52.0% that herbal cannabis should be reimbursed (3). Conclusion: Most medical doctors do not feel prepared for patient counseling. They could benefit from targeted educational interventions. We have also identified physicians' preferences that might inspire the stakeholders involved who are critical for shaping policies regarding cannabis-based therapeutics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据