Online information on medical cannabis is not always aligned with scientific evidence and may raise unrealistic expectations.
Cannabis
Consumer health information
Health information
Websites
Journal
Journal of cannabis research
ISSN: 2522-5782
Titre abrégé: J Cannabis Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101752723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jul 2022
11 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
14
06
2021
accepted:
24
06
2022
entrez:
12
7
2022
pubmed:
13
7
2022
medline:
13
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a growing literature on the potential medical uses of Cannabis sativa and cannabinoid compounds. Although these have only been approved by regulatory agencies for a few indications, there is a hype about their possible benefits in a variety of conditions and a large market in the wellness industry. As in many cases patients search for information on cannabis products online, we have analyzed the information on medical cannabis available on the Internet. Therefore, this study aims at assessing the quality of the information available online on medical cannabis. We searched "medical cannabis" on June 2019 using google.com and downloaded the first 243 websites. After excluding dead links or websites with no information about cannabis, 176 websites were included. They were then classified for their typology (e.g., commercial, government, news outlets). As an indicator of trustworthiness, we used the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, which assesses the indication of date, author, ownership of the website, and the presence of references. We also considered if a website is certified by Health-On-the-Net (HON), an independent organization, by displaying a HONCode symbol. Subsequently, we performed a content analysis to assess both the medical cannabis indications mentioned by webpages and the completeness of the information provided (whether they mentioned potential side effects and legal/regulatory issues or not). Analyzing 176 webpages returned by a search engine, we found that 52% of them were news websites. Pain, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis were the most frequently mentioned therapeutic areas (cited in 92, 84 and 80 webpages, respectively), which did not always match those for which there is regulatory approval. Information was also incomplete, with only 22% of the webpages mentioning potential side effects. Health portal websites provided the most complete information, with all of them (n = 7) reporting side effects. On average, 80% of webpages had a neutral stance on the potential benefits of medical cannabis, with commercial websites having more frequently a positive stance (67%). We conclude that the information that can be found online is not always aligned in terms of the therapeutic areas for which science-based evidence is often still weak.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a growing literature on the potential medical uses of Cannabis sativa and cannabinoid compounds. Although these have only been approved by regulatory agencies for a few indications, there is a hype about their possible benefits in a variety of conditions and a large market in the wellness industry. As in many cases patients search for information on cannabis products online, we have analyzed the information on medical cannabis available on the Internet. Therefore, this study aims at assessing the quality of the information available online on medical cannabis.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched "medical cannabis" on June 2019 using google.com and downloaded the first 243 websites. After excluding dead links or websites with no information about cannabis, 176 websites were included. They were then classified for their typology (e.g., commercial, government, news outlets). As an indicator of trustworthiness, we used the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, which assesses the indication of date, author, ownership of the website, and the presence of references. We also considered if a website is certified by Health-On-the-Net (HON), an independent organization, by displaying a HONCode symbol. Subsequently, we performed a content analysis to assess both the medical cannabis indications mentioned by webpages and the completeness of the information provided (whether they mentioned potential side effects and legal/regulatory issues or not).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Analyzing 176 webpages returned by a search engine, we found that 52% of them were news websites. Pain, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis were the most frequently mentioned therapeutic areas (cited in 92, 84 and 80 webpages, respectively), which did not always match those for which there is regulatory approval. Information was also incomplete, with only 22% of the webpages mentioning potential side effects. Health portal websites provided the most complete information, with all of them (n = 7) reporting side effects. On average, 80% of webpages had a neutral stance on the potential benefits of medical cannabis, with commercial websites having more frequently a positive stance (67%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the information that can be found online is not always aligned in terms of the therapeutic areas for which science-based evidence is often still weak.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35820952
doi: 10.1186/s42238-022-00145-w
pii: 10.1186/s42238-022-00145-w
pmc: PMC9277882
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Front Pharmacol. 2016 Nov 08;7:422
pubmed: 27877130
Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Nov;97:103361
pubmed: 34252784
Int J Gen Med. 2020 Dec 01;13:1317-1333
pubmed: 33299341
Nature. 1993 May 20;363(6426):215
pubmed: 8387642
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Oct;71(10):e62-e63
pubmed: 30145149
J Cannabis Res. 2021 Aug 16;3(1):36
pubmed: 34399853
N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 10;373(11):1048-58
pubmed: 26352816
Front Immunol. 2018 Sep 21;9:2009
pubmed: 30298064
Public Health Rep. 2019 Nov/Dec;134(6):617-625
pubmed: 31513756
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 11;7:400
pubmed: 32850905
N Engl J Med. 2005 Aug 4;353(5):487-97
pubmed: 16079372
Aust J Gen Pract. 2021 Jun;50(6):345-350
pubmed: 34059837
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 08;11:CD012853
pubmed: 30407616
Comput Biol Med. 1998 Sep;28(5):603-10
pubmed: 9861515
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;197(4):285-90
pubmed: 20884951
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 12;(11):CD009464
pubmed: 26561338
J Health Commun. 2018;23(12):993-998
pubmed: 30358488
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 08;11:CD012954
pubmed: 30406638
J Cannabis Res. 2020 Sep 18;2(1):29
pubmed: 33526127
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Dec;6(12):995-1010
pubmed: 31672337
JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244-5
pubmed: 9103351
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD005175
pubmed: 23633327
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Jan 15;6:296
pubmed: 32010699
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 25;9(1):2712
pubmed: 30804402
Front Public Health. 2017 Apr 21;5:90
pubmed: 28484695
Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2021 Jul-Aug;4(4):400-404
pubmed: 33242684
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;84(11):2458-2462
pubmed: 29859014