NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundSome people living with Parkinson's disease (PD) self-administer cannabis-based products to manage symptoms. However, using nonprescribed products can pose risks. In France, PD is not an eligible condition for prescribed cannabis-based products. Investigating healthcare providers' perspectives on this topic is critical as PD might be considered for inclusion in future French medical cannabis programs.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore healthcare providers' acceptability and perceptions regarding the therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) for PD in France.MethodsAn online cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare professionals managing patients with PD in France. Logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with their acceptability of cannabis and CBD use to manage PD.ResultsThe study population comprised 218 professionals, including 45 physicians. Acceptability levels were greater for CBD than for cannabis. Providers very concerned about cannabis dependence were less likely to agree with cannabis use to manage PD. Physicians were 87% and 90% less likely than other providers to agree with the use of cannabis and CBD, respectively, to manage PD. Among physicians, the primary barrier identified to the use of both substances was a lack of evidence to support their therapeutic effectiveness.ConclusionsAmong a sample of healthcare providers in France, physicians showed lower acceptability towards cannabis and CBD for PD. CBD was generally more accepted than cannabis. If cannabis-based products were to be authorized for symptom alleviation in PD patients, physicians may require more robust scientific evidence and training before prescribing these treatments.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.