The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
A qualitative study of VHA clinicians' knowledge and perspectives on cannabis for medical purposes
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The legalization of cannabis is expanding across the USA, and its use has increased significantly, including among Veterans. Although the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) abides by the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, it recently recommended that clinicians discuss cannabis with their patients. Little is known about VHA clinicians' perspectives on and knowledge of cannabis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to better understand clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and communication with patients regarding cannabis. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 14 VHA clinicians. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: VA clinicians described ambivalence towards cannabis for therapeutic purposes and identified several factors that inhibit conversations about cannabis use with their patients including discomfort with the lack of product standardization; lack of research examining the effectiveness and risks of cannabis use; unfamiliarity with pharmacology, formulations, and dosing of cannabis; and uncertainty regarding VHA policy. Clinicians had differing views on cannabis in the context of the opioid crisis. CONCLUSIONS: VA clinicians face challenges in navigating the topic of medical cannabis. Educational materials about cannabis products, dose and harms would be helpful to clinicians.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 22
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Veterans Health Administration, 2017, VHA Directive 1315: access to VHA clinical programs for veterans participating in state-approved marijuana programs
- New York State, 2020, Section 1004.11 – manufacturing requirements for approved medical marihuana products.
Metadata
- Authors
- Christensen, V. A., Nugent, S. M., Ayers, C. K., Morasco, B. J., & Kansagara, D.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Portland VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Christensen, Vivian A
- Venue
- Family Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-02-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 479-483
- ISSN
- 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2229
- OpenAlex
- W3128039590
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Family Practice (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Office of Research and Development
- Health Services Research and Development
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Keywords
- medical cannabis, veterans, Veterans Health Administration, clinician knowledge, clinician attitudes, Schedule I drug classification, cannabis pharmacology, cannabis harm, opioid epidemic, clinician-patient communication, cannabis policy
- MeSH terms
- Cannabis, Communication, Humans, Veterans, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
