Consumer perspectives of accessing medicinal cannabis treatment from cannabis clinics versus generalist health settings in Australia

TL;DR

This study compares patient experiences of getting medicinal cannabis from specialized clinics versus general health settings in Australia.

Contribution

It identifies differences in patient profiles, treatment types, and satisfaction levels between the two service settings.

Findings

Patients from cannabis clinics were younger, more employed, and more likely to use cannabis for mental health.

Generalist health setting patients reported higher satisfaction with treatment information and costs.

Cannabis clinics provided less satisfaction with consultation duration and treatment approaches.

Abstract

To examine consumer perspectives regarding medicinal cannabis treatment provided to patients attending generalist health settings (GHS) compared to those attending medicinal cannabis clinics (MCC).

An anonymous online survey, with convenience sampling of adults self-reporting prescribed medicinal cannabis in the preceding 12 months. Outcomes included participant characteristics, indications and patterns of cannabis use, consumer satisfaction.

Most participants (1899/2394, 79.3%) accessed treatment from MCC. Compared to generalist settings, MCC participants were younger (3.5 years, 95%CI: -4.7, -2.2), less likely to be prescribed oral products (OR = 0.4, 0.4–0.5), and had higher rates of employment (OR = 2.1, 1.8–2.5) and cannabis use disorder (OR = 1.5, 1.2–1.8). MCC participants were less likely to seek treatment for chronic pain (OR = 0.7, 0.6–0.8), but more likely for mental health conditions (OR = 1.6, 1.3-2.0). MCC participants had lower satisfaction levels regarding consultation duration (OR = 0.8, 0.7–0.9), information about potential harms and benefits (OR = 0.7, 0.6–0.9), use of other treatment approaches (OR = 0.5, 0.4–0.6) and treatment costs (OR = 0.6, 0.5–0.7).

We identified differences in the profile of patients, type of treatment provided between service settings, and there were higher levels of satisfaction amongst consumers accessing treatment in GHS settings. Further research is required to examine other dimensions of quality and appropriateness of care provided in MCC.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42238-025-00338-z.