Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Trust—defined as “the acceptance of a vulnerable situation in which the truster believes that the trustee will act in the truster’s best interests.”1(p.125)—is an essential element of the patient-provider relationship. Beyond its inherent benefits, trust predicts a variety of positive health outcomes. For example, trust has been associated with better patient engagement, 2 satisfaction,3-5 patient adherence,4,6 use of recommended preventive services, 7 self-rated health, 8 control of chronic conditions, 9 and utilization patterns including fewer missed visits and less delayed care. 10 A 2017 meta-analysis of 47 studies examining the association between trust in health care professionals and health outcomes including objective (e.g., blood pressure, glycemic control), observer-rated (e.g., diagnosis), and self-rated subjective (e.g., satisfaction, quality of life, health promotion) measures found evidence of positive correlations between a variety of outcomes. Stronger correlations were found between trust and self-rated subjective health outcomes and behaviors than objective or observer-rated outcomes. 11
Despite what is known about the importance of trust between patient and clinician, including its positive influence on medication adherence, it is not clear what role trust might play in influencing patients’ willingness to try medical cannabis if it is recommended by a provider in a state where it has been legalized. This is a delicate matter—mostly because cannabis remains illegal at the federal-level 12 and there is often stigma associated with its use.13,14 In fact, even in states that have legalized cannabis for medical use, studies have found that patients who use the drug experience high levels of psychological distress and stress related to criminality and are subjected to human rights violations by law enforcement (e.g., searches, job loss, home eviction).15,16 For these reasons, taking cannabis is unlike taking any other prescription medication.
At the same time, Americans’ self-reported use of cannabis has increased dramatically over the last decade—from 7.5% to 13.5% among people aged 12 or older from 2013 to 2020 17 —and their attitudes about its legalization are more accepting and permissive. 18 Given the importance of trust in influencing favorable patient outcomes and states’ rapid movement towards legal cannabis environments, it is important to understand whether patient trust might also play a role in patients’ willingness to use medical cannabis. This paper explores this phenomenon. Specifically, we explored the relationship between peoples’ trust in their health care providers (both their regular health care professional and their hospital) and their willingness to consider using recommended medical cannabis.
Methods
We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey of U.S. adults (age 18 or over) who participated in the Qualtrics Research Company Panel. The Qualtrics Panel has been found to be reflective of national demographics, 19 and we used quotas to more closely match our sample to the demographic characteristics of adults in the U.S. based upon gender, race/ethnicity, age, educational level, and region. We recruited a total sample of 1120 respondents who completed the survey between September and October 2021. Electronic consent was obtained. The research was approved by the Baruch College, City University of New York, Institutional Review Board.
The survey asked respondents about whether they had a regular provider, and if so, whether it was a doctor or another type of clinician. Based on the response, respondents were asked how much trust they had in their regular doctor or clinician, and those without a regular health care provider were asked about their trust in doctors, in general. All respondents were also asked “In general, how much do you trust hospitals?”
We also asked respondents their opinions about the legalization of cannabis as well as their ever-use and past-month cannabis use. Among those who reported past-month cannabis use, we asked about the frequency of use (i.e., number of days), route of administration (e.g., smoke, eat, vaporize), and reason for use (medical, recreational, both).
Respondents who reported not using cannabis in the past month were asked two additional questions about their willingness to use medical cannabis if it was recommended. One question focused on their willingness to use cannabis if it was recommended by their health care professional (clinician or a doctor, depending on the type of usual clinician or if they had one). Another question asked about their willingness to use medical cannabis if it was recommended while hospitalized.
Using descriptive statistics, we examined the prevalence of responses to each item. We created an aggregate measure of trust in clinicians by combining responses to questions about respondents’ trust in their regular doctor or health care professional, or for those who did not have a regular clinician, their trust in physicians, in general. We also created an aggregate measure of willingness to use recommended medical cannabis by combining responses to questions about respondents’ willingness to consider using the drug if recommended by their regular doctor, regular clinician, or a doctor (if they did not have a regular provider).
We used bivariate chi-square tests to separately examine the relationship between respondents’ trust in their clinician or trust in hospitals, in general, and their willingness to consider using recommended medical cannabis. We conducted two supplemental analyses examining these same relationships (i.e., trust in clinician or hospitals and willingness to consider using recommended cannabis) among the subsample of respondents who (1) reported never using cannabis and (2) reported not using cannabis in the past month and living in states that had legalized medical cannabis. All P-values were 2-tailed, and P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Stata/SE version 15.1 was used for all analyses. 20
Results
Characteristics of the sample (N = 1120).
Source: Authors’ analysis of anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey.
Sources of regular care and degree of trust in providers (N = 1120).
Source: Authors’ analysis of anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey.
aThis question was asked only of those who reported that they had a person who they thought of as their regular doctor or health care provider (n = 945).
bThis question was asked only of those who reported that their regular provider was a doctor (n = 791).
cThis question was asked only of those who reported that their regular provider was some other type of health care provider (e.g., nurse practitioner, physician assistant) (n = 135).
Respondents’ cannabis use and willingness to use medical cannabis, if recommended (N = 1120).
Source: Authors’ analysis of anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey.
aThis question was asked only of those who reported that they had ever used marijuana (n=655).
bThis question was asked only of those who reported that they had past-month used marijuana (n=352).
cThis question was asked only of those who reported that their regular provider was a doctor and that they did not use marijuana in the last 30 days (n=548).
dThis question was asked only of those who reported that their regular provider was not a doctor (i.e., was another type of health care provider or did not know) and that they did not use marijuana in the last 30 days (n=108).
eThis question was asked only of those who reported that they did not have a regular provider and that they did not use marijuana in the last 30 days (n=111).
fThis question was asked only of those who reported that they did not use marijuana in the last 30 days (n=768).
We asked the 768 respondents who were not past-month users whether they would be willing to consider using medical cannabis if it were recommended by their regular doctor, regular health care provider, or a doctor (depending on the type of usual clinician or if they had one). Across these subgroups, more than one-half (51.2%) reported a “definite” or “probable” willingness to consider its use (Table 3). Respondents’ willingness to consider using the drug ranged from 44.1% if recommended by a doctor to 54.7% if recommended by their regular health care provider. During a hospitalization, 55.4% of respondent reported a “definite” or “probable” willingness to consider using the drug, if recommended.
Relationship between level of trust and willingness to consider using recommended medical cannabis (N = 767).
Source: Authors’ analysis of anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey.
A similar pattern was seen in our examination of participants’ trust in hospitals and their willingness to consider using recommended medical cannabis (Table 4). Among those who had lower trust in hospitals (“not at all,” “slightly trust,” or “moderately trust”), 25.6% reported “definitely” being willing to consider using recommended medical cannabis. A higher proportion of respondents who “completely” trusted hospitals (45.2%) were “definitely” willing to consider using the drug, if recommended. The relationship between these variables was also statistically significant (chi-square = 14.7; P = .023).
Results from our supplemental analyses were consistent with these findings—that is, the greater respondents’ trust in their clinicians or hospitals, the more likely they were to report a willingness to consider using recommended medical cannabis.
Discussion
Cannabis has been found to have a variety of therapeutic uses. In its review, the National Academy of Medicine found conclusive or substantial evidence of cannabis’ effectiveness in treating chronic pain in adults, as antiemetics in the treatment of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting; and for improving patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms 12 ; yet, some patients are reluctant to try medical cannabis because of its federal prohibition or stigma. This could potentially limit the drugs' therapeutic benefits and patients’ positive outcomes.
Our study highlights the importance of the patient-provider relationship in patients’ willingness to use medical cannabis if recommended by a trusted provider. As our findings demonstrate, when respondents trust their provider—clinician or hospital—they are more likely to consider using medical cannabis, if recommended. This is consistent with the existing literature that finds patients who trust their clinician are more willing to follow through with clinicians’ recommendations,9,21,22 but this is the first examination, to our knowledge, that has tested the relationship between trust and a medical treatment that is illegal at the federal-level and has stigma.
Our findings are useful in a variety of contexts. First, providers who certify patients for medical cannabis or recommend medical cannabis as a treatment should be aware that trust matters. Individual clinicians, and the organizations in which they work, should avail themselves of the strategies that are known to build and increase trust among patients—for example, emphasizing interpersonal relationships built on empathy and listening,23-25 promoting patient choice and activation, establishing policies around transparency, and measuring and reporting trust alongside other performance metrics.26-28
Second, given stigma’s role in underuse of medical cannabis,13,29 efforts should be made to normalize use of the drug. Incorporating content about medical cannabis into health professions’ licensure and education requirements, teaching providers how to comfortably discuss medical cannabis with patients, and integrating questions about medical cannabis use into standardized patient records systems could contribute to this effort. Efforts by policymakers to reduce or remove criminal sanctions for cannabis would contribute to easing societal perceptions of cannabis’ illicit status.
Findings from our study should be placed in the context of the limitations of our data and methods. Specifically, we surveyed a sample of adults whose characteristics mirror the U.S. adult population (Supplement A-1)—although our sample underrepresented Latinos and those with less than high school educations—but were not representative or generalizable Supplement A-1. Ever-use of cannabis was reported to be higher in our sample (58.5%) than in nationally representative surveys (50%) 30 although the proportions of those who reported using cannabis for medical (30.1% vs 28.6%), recreational (37.8% vs 38.2%), or both (32.1% vs 33.1%) reasons were similar to other national surveys. 31 Additional research should be conducted to explore the trust-medical cannabis relationship among a diverse, nationally representative sample.
Conclusion
Trust is an essential component of the therapeutic relationship. Prior studies have found an association between patient-provider trust and a variety of positive health behaviors and outcomes. In a large sample of U.S. adults, we found strong, persistent relationships between provider trust and respondents’ willingness to use recommended medical cannabis. Respondents who expressed greater trust in their clinicians and hospitals were more willing to use recommended medical cannabis. These findings underscore the importance of patient-provider trust, particularly as more states legalize cannabis for medical use and as cannabis’ therapeutic benefits are recognized.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Are Patients Who Trust Their Providers More Likely to Use Medical Cannabis?
Supplemental material for Are Patients Who Trust Their Providers More Likely to Use Medical Cannabis? by Ellen T. Kurtzman and Jessica Greene in American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
