Abstract
Background
While medical marijuana use is legal in more than half of U.S. states, evidence is limited about the preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe medical marijuana. We asked whether current medical school and graduate medical educational training prepare physicians to prescribe medical marijuana.
Methods
We conducted a national survey of U.S. medical school curriculum deans, a similar survey of residents and fellows at Washington University in St. Louis, and a query of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory database for keywords associated with medical marijuana.
Results
Surveys were obtained from 101 curriculum deans, and 258 residents and fellows. 145 schools were included in the curriculum search. The majority of deans (66.7%) reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, and 25.0% reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to answer questions about medical marijuana. The vast majority of residents and fellows (89.5%) felt not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, while 35.3% felt not at all prepared to answer questions, and 84.9% reported receiving no education in medical school or residency on medical marijuana. Finally, only 9% of medical school curriculums document in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory database content on medical marijuana.
Conclusions
Our study highlights a fundamental mismatch between the state-level legalization of medical marijuana and the lack of preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe it. With even more states on the cusp of legalizing medical marijuana, physician training should adapt to encompass this new reality of medical practice.
Keywords: cannabis, marijuana, medical education
1. Introduction
Medical marijuana has increasingly gained popularity as a treatment for diverse medical conditions including epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, and Crohn’s Disease, as well as an alternative to opioids for treatment of pain (Federation of State Medical Boards, 2016; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Although federal law prohibits physicians from prescribing marijuana because of its classification as a Schedule 1 substance by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and thus defined as having no currently acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse, marijuana has been legalized for medicinal purposes in 29 states and the District of Columbia, with additional states poised to make this change (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009). In most states where medical marijuana is legalized, medicinal users are required to have documentation from a physician “prescribing” marijuana treatment for their medical condition. Because marijuana is prohibited to be prescribed on the federal level, these “prescriptions” are often called “recommendations” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017). We asked whether current training prepares physicians to answer questions and prescribe medical marijuana to their patients.
2. Methods
2.1. Measures
We analyzed three data sources: (1) survey of curriculum deans at United States medical schools; (2) survey of residents and fellows at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine; and (3) search of medical school curricula through the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory.
2.1.1. Dean Survey
We invited curriculum deans at allopathic (141) and osteopathic (31) medical schools in the United States to participate. The Institutional Review Board-approved survey included questions regarding how well prepared their graduating medical students were to prescribe medical marijuana. A survey link and a letter describing the study were emailed to each dean’s primary address. Follow up emails and a hard copy follow up letter were sent to increase response rates. Questions in the survey included “How prepared are your graduating students with answering patients’ questions about medical marijuana?” and “How prepared are your graduating students with prescribing medical marijuana?” with answer choices including “not at all”, “slightly”, “moderately”, “very”, and “extremely”. The survey also asked, “Do you believe medical marijuana should be a required part of the medical school core curriculum at your institution?” with answer choices including “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neutral”, “agree”, “strongly agree”. Surveys were completed from May to August 2016.
2.1.2. Resident and Fellow Survey
Residents and fellows at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine were invited to participate in our survey from March to June 2016. The graduate medical education office emailed the Institutional Review Board-approved survey to 1176 residents and fellows, and a reminder email was sent two weeks later to all initial survey recipients. Questions included, “How prepared are you with answering patients’ questions about medical marijuana?”, and “How prepared are you with prescribing medical marijuana?” with answer choices including “not at all”, “slightly”, “moderately”, “very”, and “extremely”. The survey also asked, “Have you received any education about medical marijuana?”, and “Do you believe education about medical marijuana should be required?” with answer choices including “no”, “yes in medical school”, “yes in residency or fellowship”, and “yes in both”. We also asked for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specialty group of the participants – hospital-based, medical, or surgical.
2.1.3. Curriculum Inventory Report
The AAMC Curriculum Inventory contains curriculum content from participating U.S. medical schools, and includes course names, session titles, and learning objectives. We requested a custom report for academic year 2015–2016 to determine the number of schools that documented medical marijuana in their submitted curriculum content (Association of American Medical Colleges). Marijuana keywords such as “Marijuana, Cannabis, Marihuana” were identified throughout the submitted curriculum information to find references to marijuana, and the keywords were used to find connected words such as “Legal, Medical, Therapeutics” to find curriculum artifacts related to medical marijuana. A review of the specific search results was then performed, and results that focused on marijuana addiction and hallucinogens were excluded.
2.2. Analysis
Comparisons between response options on the dean and resident surveys were made using two-tailed chi-squared tests on GraphPad Prism (7), collapsing groups (such as “strongly agree” and “agree” into one group) when cells had too few responses.
3. Results
3.1. Dean Survey
101 curriculum deans responded to the survey (58.7% response rate), representing 82 allopathic and 19 osteopathic medical schools from 37 states and Puerto Rico. Twenty-five percent of deans reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to answer questions about medical marijuana, while 51.0% felt that their graduates were slightly prepared, and only 24.0% felt their graduates were moderately, very, or extremely prepared to answer questions (Table 1). Furthermore, most deans (66.7%) reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, while 27.3% felt that they were slightly prepared, and only 6.0% felt that their graduates were moderately, very, or extremely prepared. Nearly half of deans (48.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that education about medical marijuana should be included in undergraduate medical education.
Table 1.
Dean survey responses. Total, and stratified by legality of medical marijuana in the state where the dean’s medical school is located.
| Total | Medical Marijuana Legal |
Medical Marijuana Not Legal |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (101) |
% | N (35) |
% | N (66) |
% | ||
| How prepared are your graduating students with answering patients’ questions about medical marijuana? | Not at all | 25 | 25.0% | 6 | 17.1% | 19 | 29.2% |
| Slightly | 51 | 51.0% | 22 | 62.9% | 29 | 44.6% | |
| Moderately | 22 | 22.0% | 7 | 20.0% | 15 | 23.1% | |
| Very | 2 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 3.1% | |
| Extremely | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| How prepared are your graduating students with prescribing medical marijuana? | Not at all | 66 | 66.7% | 22 | 62.9% | 44 | 68.8% |
| Slightly | 27 | 27.3% | 11 | 31.4% | 16 | 25.0% | |
| Moderately | 4 | 4.0% | 2 | 5.7% | 2 | 3.1% | |
| Very | 2 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 3.1% | |
| Extremely | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Do you believe medical marijuana should be a required part of the medical school core curriculum at your institution? | Strongly Disagree | 2 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 3.1% |
| Disagree | 15 | 15.2% | 4 | 11.8% | 11 | 16.9% | |
| Neutral | 34 | 34.3% | 13 | 38.2% | 21 | 32.3% | |
| Agree | 44 | 44.4% | 17 | 50.0% | 27 | 41.5% | |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 4.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 6.2% | |
“Prefer not to answer” was an option for each question, which accounts for the variability in numbers of responses. Only 0–2 participants chose this answer for any given question.
In states where medical marijuana was not legal, 29.2% of deans reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to answer questions about medical marijuana, versus 17.1% of deans in states where medical marijuana was legal. This difference, though large, was not statistically significant (Chi-square=3.17, df=2, p=0.20). Other comparisons showed minimal differences between deans’ responses in states where medical marijuana was not legal vs. legal (not at all prepared to prescribe: 68.8 vs. 62.9%; agree or strongly agree that education about medical marijuana should be included in the curriculum: 47.7 vs. 50.0%).
3.2. Resident and Fellow Survey
258 out of 1176 (21.9% response rate) residents and fellows completed the online survey (54 hospital-based, 138 medical, and 66 surgical). 35.3% of respondents felt not at all prepared to answer patients’ questions about medical marijuana, while 41.5% felt slightly prepared, and 23.3% felt moderately, very, or extremely prepared (Table 2). Residents and fellows in medical specialties were significantly more likely to report being at least moderately prepared to answer questions (29.1%), followed by residents and fellows in hospital-based specialties (22.2%), with surgical residents and fellows least likely to be at least moderately prepared to answer questions (12.2%) (Chi-square=19.01, df=4, p=0.0008). The vast majority of residents, 89.5%, felt not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, while 4.7% felt slightly prepared and 5.9% felt moderately, very, or extremely prepared. No differences between hospital-based, medical, or surgical specialties were seen in perceived preparation to prescribe medical marijuana.
Table 2.
Resident/fellow survey responses. Total, and stratified by specialty.
| Total | Hospital-based Specialty |
Medical Specialty |
Surgical Specialty |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (258) |
% | N (54) |
% | N (138) |
% | N (66) |
% | ||
| How prepared are you with answering patients' questions about medical marijuana? * | Not at all | 91 | 35.3% | 21 | 38.9% | 34 | 24.6% | 36 | 54.6% |
| Slightly | 107 | 41.5% | 21 | 38.9% | 64 | 46.4% | 22 | 33.3% | |
| Moderately | 41 | 15.9% | 8 | 14.8% | 28 | 20.3% | 5 | 7.6% | |
| Very | 17 | 6.6% | 4 | 7.4% | 10 | 7.3% | 3 | 4.6% | |
| Extremely | 2 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.5% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| How prepared are you with prescribing medical marijuana? | Not at all | 230 | 89.5% | 47 | 87.0% | 126 | 92.0% | 57 | 86.4% |
| Slightly | 12 | 4.7% | 4 | 7.4% | 4 | 2.9% | 4 | 6.1% | |
| Moderately | 12 | 4.7% | 2 | 3.7% | 7 | 5.1% | 3 | 4.6% | |
| Very | 3 | 1.2% | 1 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 3.0% | |
| Extremely | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Have you received any education about medical marijuana? ** | No | 219 | 84.9% | 50 | 92.6% | 109 | 79.0% | 60 | 90.9% |
| Yes in medical school | 22 | 8.5% | 4 | 7.4% | 13 | 9.4% | 5 | 7.6% | |
| Yes in residency/fellowship | 12 | 4.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 12 | 8.7% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Yes in both medical school and residency/fellowship | 5 | 1.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 2.9% | 1 | 1.5% | |
| Do you believe education about medical marijuana should be required? | No | 56 | 21.9% | 15 | 28.3% | 27 | 19.7% | 14 | 21.2% |
| Yes in medical school | 73 | 28.5% | 18 | 34.0% | 31 | 22.6% | 24 | 36.4% | |
| Yes in residency/fellowship | 40 | 15.6% | 6 | 11.3% | 26 | 19.0% | 8 | 12.1% | |
| Yes in both medical school and residency/fellowship | 87 | 34.0% | 14 | 26.4% | 53 | 38.7% | 20 | 30.3% | |
Significant difference between specialties in preparedness to answer questions about medical marijuana (Chi-square=19.01, df=4, p=0.0008)
Significant difference between specialties in receiving education during medical school (Chi-square=13.7, df=6, p=0.03)
“Prefer not to answer” was an option for each question, which accounts for the variability in numbers of responses. Only 0–2 participants chose this answer for any given question.
The majority of residents and fellows, 84.9%, reported receiving no education about medical marijuana in medical school or residency, with some differences observed based on specialty. Residents and fellows in medical specialties were significantly more likely to report receiving education during their training (21.0%), followed by surgical specialties (9.1%), with hospital-based specialties (7.4%) the least likely to have received education (Chi-square=13.7, df=6, p=0.03). Notably, 12 (8.7%) medical residents and fellows reported receiving medical marijuana education in residency or fellowship, whereas no surgical or hospital-based residents reported receiving education in residency or fellowship.
The residents and fellows who reported that medical marijuana was legal in their state at the time of their medical education were more likely to report receiving education on medical marijuana in medical school (8 out of 26, 30.8%) than their counterparts who did not attend school in a state where medical marijuana was legal (18 out of 211, 8.5%) (Chi-square=11.72, df=1, p=0.0006).
Residents and fellows who reported receiving education on medical marijuana in medical school, residency/fellowship, or both (39 out of 258, 15.1%) stated a greater preparedness to answer questions about medical marijuana than their counterparts (61.5% vs. 16.4% reporting being at least moderately prepared; Chi-square=40.13, df=2, p<0.0001). (Table 3) Residents and fellows who received education also felt more prepared to prescribe medical marijuana than their counterparts (10.3% vs. 5.1% being at least moderately prepared) though this difference did not reach statistical significance (Chi-square=2.72, df=2, p=0.26).
Table 3.
Resident/fellow survey responses. Total, and stratified by whether the resident/fellow reported receiving education about medical marijuana.
| Total | Received Education |
Did Not Receive Education |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (258) |
% | N (39) |
% | N (219) |
% | ||
| How prepared are you with answering patients' questions about medical marijuana? * | Not at all | 91 | 35.3% | 3 | 7.7% | 88 | 40.2% |
| Slightly | 107 | 41.5% | 12 | 30.8% | 95 | 43.4% | |
| Moderately | 41 | 15.9% | 14 | 35.9% | 27 | 12.3% | |
| Very | 17 | 6.6% | 8 | 20.5% | 9 | 4.1% | |
| Extremely | 2 | 0.8% | 2 | 5.1% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| How prepared are you with prescribing medical marijuana? | Not at all | 230 | 89.5% | 32 | 82.1% | 198 | 90.8% |
| Slightly | 12 | 4.7% | 3 | 7.7% | 9 | 4.1% | |
| Moderately | 12 | 4.7% | 4 | 10.3% | 8 | 3.7% | |
| Very | 3 | 1.2% | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 1.4% | |
| Extremely | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
Significant difference in preparedness to answer questions about medical marijuana based on whether the resident/fellow received education about medical marijuana (Chi-square=40.13, df=2, p<0.0001)
“Prefer not to answer” was an option for each question, which accounts for the variability in numbers of responses. Only 0–2 participants chose this answer for any given question.
A majority of residents and fellows (78.1%) thought education about medical marijuana should be required in medical school and/or residency. No differences in opinions on education were seen based on specialty or graduation from medical school in a state where medical marijuana was legal.
3.3. Curriculum Inventory Report
Of the 145 U.S. medical schools included in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory academic year 2015–2016 benchmarked data, 82 of the 145 (56.6%) schools were in a state where medical marijuana was legal. Only 13 (9.0%) of the participating schools documented any medical marijuana education in their submitted curriculum content. No differences were seen in inclusion of medical marijuana education in the curriculum based on legality of medical marijuana in the state; 8 of the 82 (9.8%) medical schools in a state where medical marijuana was legal documented education about medical marijuana and 5 of the 63 (7.9%) medical schools in a state where medical marijuana was not legal documented education about medical marijuana (Chi-square= 0.14, df=1, p=0.70).
4. Discussion
This study is the first to examine the preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe medical marijuana. We examined this question through multiple channels – a survey of curriculum deans at U.S. medical schools, a survey of residents and fellows at our institution, and a search of medical school curricula through the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory. All three sources converge on a similar finding: although medical marijuana use is now legal in 29 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, physicians-in-training are not prepared to “prescribe” medical marijuana, and there is little formal educational training in this area.
Over 75% of medical school curriculum deans reported that their graduates are not at all prepared or are only slightly prepared to answer patients’ questions about medical marijuana, and 94% reported that their graduates are not at all prepared or only slightly prepared to prescribe medical marijuana. These findings are mirrored by our institution’s residents’ and fellows’ perceptions of their own lack of preparation. Furthermore, the findings from the curriculum deans and residents and fellows at our institution are consistent with our curriculum survey of U.S. medical schools conducted through the AAMC, which finds that less than 10% of medical schools have medical marijuana documented in their curriculum.
Though these three sources demonstrate the lack of education and the lack of preparedness of physicians-in-training to discuss medical marijuana with patients or “prescribe” medical marijuana, nearly 50% of curriculum deans and the majority of residents and fellows (78.1%) at our institution support the inclusion of training about medical marijuana. This support of medical marijuana training is consistent with a recent study at the University of Colorado that reports that 98% of its students believe that physicians should have formal training about medical marijuana before recommending it to patients (Chan et al., 2017). Importantly, this survey provides evidence that education about medical marijuana can improve physicians’ comfort about this topic. The residents and fellows in our survey who reported receiving education about medical marijuana stated greater preparedness to answer questions about medical marijuana (61.5% reporting being at least moderately prepared) as well as to prescribe medical marijuana (10.3% being at least moderately prepared) than their counterparts (16.4% and 5.1%, respectively).
There are several strengths to this study, including multiple sources of data, the relatively high response rate from the deans, and the broad national coverage of the AAMC curriculum survey. Limitations of this study include small numbers of respondents in some categories, such as residents who attended medical school where medical marijuana was legal, which could have obscured differences between groups, and a modest response rate of the residents and fellows, which could have affected the generalizability of the results. This study also only includes resident and fellow data from one institution, though the residents and fellows matriculated from a broad geographic range of medical school programs. Our survey was brief and many other important questions remain. For example, we did not query about a physician’s knowledge and ability to discern between therapeutic use versus misuse of medical marijuana.
5. Conclusions
In summary, our study highlights a fundamental and potentially growing mismatch between the legalization of medical marijuana at a state level and the ability of physicians to properly address patients’ questions about medical marijuana or to appropriately prescribe it. This change in policy reflects the increasing evidence of potential positive health effects from medical marijuana. The recent National Academy of Medicine report on “The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids” documents conclusive or substantial evidence of the effectiveness of medical marijuana for a variety of conditions, including chronic pain, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, as well as patient-reported spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). These positive therapeutic effects of medical marijuana must be balanced by potential adverse consequences, including impaired cognition, increased motor vehicle crashes, lower birth weight offspring, and addiction (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). With more states on the cusp of legalizing medical marijuana, we must address this mismatch between policy and physician training so that we can best help our patients obtain the potential benefits and minimize adverse consequences from using medical marijuana.
Highlights.
Physicians-in-training are not prepared to prescribe medical marijuana
Physicians-in-training think education about medical marijuana should be required
Only 9% of medical schools have medical marijuana documented in their curriculum
Education can improve physician preparedness to prescribe medical marijuana
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Sherri Fisher for her work in preparing the surveys for Institutional Review Board approval. They would also like to acknowledge Dr. Rebecca McAlister, the Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education at Washington University in St. Louis, for her help with surveying the residents and fellows, and the Office of the Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education for their hard work implementing the survey.
Role of Funding Source
This work was supported by the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1TR000448 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Contributors
LJB, ABE and TQ conceived the study, acquired, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted the paper. CD and MA made substantial contributions to the study design and interpretation of data, and they provided critical review of the paper for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication and have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related the accuracy or integrity of any part of it are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts declared.
References
- Association of American Medical Colleges. [Accessed 28 January 2017];A.A.M.C. Curriculum Inventory. 2015– https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/cir.
- Chan MH, Knoepke CE, Cole ML, McKinnon J, Matlock DD. Colorado medical students’ attitudes and beliefs about marijuana. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2017;32:458–463. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3957-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Federation of State Medical Boards. [Accessed on 25 January 2017];Model guidelines for the recommendation of marijuana in patient care. 2016 https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/BRD_RPT_16-2_Marijuana_Model_Guidelines.pdf.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. The National Academies Press; Washington, D.C.: 2017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Conference of State Legislatures. [Accessed 25 January 2017];State medical marijuana laws. 2017 http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Accessed 25 January 2017];Controlled Substances Act: Title 21 – Food and Drugs, Chapter 13 – Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, Subchapter I – Control and Enforcement. 2009 http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm.