Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The global burden of chronic health conditions is significant. Medicinal cannabis (MC) is a legalised treatment option for patients with chronic health conditions in some countries. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an important patient-reported outcome across all chronic health conditions. We aimed to determine how studies of MC therapy justify, measure, and report HRQL, and assess the current evidence for HRQL following MC treatment.</p> Methods <p>Systematic review searching AMED, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and PsycINFO from Jan 2015 to Apr 2025. Studies using validated HRQL measures pre-, and post-MC treatment for any chronic health condition were included. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Completeness of HRQL reporting was evaluated. Meta-analyses for short-term (2-weeks to 3-months), medium-term (&gt; 3 to &lt; 12-months), and long-term (≥ 12-months) HRQL outcomes were conducted, with Risk of Bias (RoB) assessed in randomised control trials (RCTs).</p> Results <p>Of 16,674 retrieved citations, 64 studies were retained for analysis:12 RCTs; 38 cohort studies; 13 case series; 1 non-randomised experimental study. Thirty-nine studies (61%) provided justification for assessing HRQL and five (8%) provided HRQL definitions. Studies used generic (<i>n</i> = 52, 81%) or condition-specific (<i>n</i> = 12, 19%) HRQL measures, with EQ-5D-5L most commonly used. Meta-analyses: RCTs showed small short-term HRQL improvements (Cohen’s d = 0.30, <i>p</i> = 0.03), with some concerns or low RoB. For observational studies, HRQL improved in all follow-up periods (d = 0.43 to 0.74; all <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). HRQL improvement varied between, and within, different health conditions.</p> Conclusion <p>This systematic review and meta-analyses of studies published between 2015 and 2025 found that few studies provided HRQL definitions, and a third of studies did not explain why they measured HRQL. To ensure appropriate measures are used for this important treatment outcome, future studies should define HRQL and justify the HRQL assessment in the context of research objectives. Overall, improvements in HRQL were observed across studies of patients using MC.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Health-related quality of life in patients receiving medicinal cannabis: systematic review and meta-analysis of primary research findings 2015–2025

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月1日

查看全文
  • Margaret-Ann Tait,
  • Louise Acret,
  • Daniel S. J. Costa,
  • Rachel Campbell,
  • Kate White,
  • Claudia Rutherford

摘要

Purpose

The global burden of chronic health conditions is significant. Medicinal cannabis (MC) is a legalised treatment option for patients with chronic health conditions in some countries. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an important patient-reported outcome across all chronic health conditions. We aimed to determine how studies of MC therapy justify, measure, and report HRQL, and assess the current evidence for HRQL following MC treatment.

Methods

Systematic review searching AMED, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and PsycINFO from Jan 2015 to Apr 2025. Studies using validated HRQL measures pre-, and post-MC treatment for any chronic health condition were included. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Completeness of HRQL reporting was evaluated. Meta-analyses for short-term (2-weeks to 3-months), medium-term (> 3 to < 12-months), and long-term (≥ 12-months) HRQL outcomes were conducted, with Risk of Bias (RoB) assessed in randomised control trials (RCTs).

Results

Of 16,674 retrieved citations, 64 studies were retained for analysis:12 RCTs; 38 cohort studies; 13 case series; 1 non-randomised experimental study. Thirty-nine studies (61%) provided justification for assessing HRQL and five (8%) provided HRQL definitions. Studies used generic (n = 52, 81%) or condition-specific (n = 12, 19%) HRQL measures, with EQ-5D-5L most commonly used. Meta-analyses: RCTs showed small short-term HRQL improvements (Cohen’s d = 0.30, p = 0.03), with some concerns or low RoB. For observational studies, HRQL improved in all follow-up periods (d = 0.43 to 0.74; all p < 0.001). HRQL improvement varied between, and within, different health conditions.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analyses of studies published between 2015 and 2025 found that few studies provided HRQL definitions, and a third of studies did not explain why they measured HRQL. To ensure appropriate measures are used for this important treatment outcome, future studies should define HRQL and justify the HRQL assessment in the context of research objectives. Overall, improvements in HRQL were observed across studies of patients using MC.