IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0277355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From growers to patients: Multi-stakeholder views on the use of, and access to medicinal cannabis in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Erku
  • Lisa-Marie Greenwood
  • Myfanwy Graham
  • Christine Mary Hallinan
  • Jessica G Bartschi
  • Elianne Renaud
  • Paul Scuffham

Abstract

Background: Patient interest in the use of cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) has increased in Australia. While recent policy and legislative changes have enabled health practitioners to prescribe CBMs for their patients, many patients still struggle to access CBMs. This paper employed a thematic analysis to submissions made to a 2019 Australian government inquiry into current barriers of patient access to medical cannabis. Methods: We identified 121 submissions from patients or family members (n = 63), government bodies (n = 5), non-government organisations (i.e., professional health bodies, charities, consumer organisations or advocacy groups; n = 25), medical cannabis and pharmaceutical industry (n = 16), and individual health professionals, academics, or research centres (n = 12). Data were coded using NVivo 12 software and thematically analysed. The findings were presented narratively using a modified Levesque’s patient-centred access to care framework which includes: i) appropriateness; ii) availability and geographic accessibility; iii) acceptability; and iv) affordability. Results: Submissions from government agencies and professional health bodies consistently supported maintaining the current regulatory frameworks and access pathways, whereas an overwhelming majority of patients, advocacy groups and the medical cannabis industry described the current regulatory and access models as ‘not fit for purpose’. These differing views seem to arise from divergent persepctives on (i) what and how much evidence is needed for policy and practice, and (ii) how patients should be given access to medical cannabis products amidst empirical uncertainty. Notwithstanding these differences, there were commonalities among some stakeholders regarding the various supply, regulatory, legislative, financial, and dispensing challenges that hindered timely access to CBMs. Conclusions: Progress in addressing the fundamental barriers that determine if and how a patient accesses and uses CBMs needs i) a ‘system-level’ reform that gives due consideration to the geographic disparity in access to prescribers and medical cannabis, and ii) reframing societal and health professional’s views of CBMs by decoupling recreational vs medical cannabis.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Erku & Lisa-Marie Greenwood & Myfanwy Graham & Christine Mary Hallinan & Jessica G Bartschi & Elianne Renaud & Paul Scuffham, 2022. "From growers to patients: Multi-stakeholder views on the use of, and access to medicinal cannabis in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277355
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277355
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277355&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0277355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.