Patients Were Less Satisfied With Specialized Cannabis Clinics Than With General Healthcare Settings | Research

The takeaway

An Australian survey of nearly 2,400 medical cannabis patients found those attending specialized cannabis clinics were less satisfied than those treated by general healthcare providers, particularly regarding consultation time, information, and costs.

Medical cannabis patients choosing a provider and policymakers regulating cannabis healthcare delivery.

Patients at general healthcare settings were 50% more likely to be satisfied with discussion of other treatment options

What the researchers found

Of 2,394 respondents, 79.3% accessed treatment from specialized cannabis clinics (MCCs). Compared to generalist settings, MCC patients were younger, less likely to receive oral products, had higher employment and cannabis use disorder rates, and sought treatment more for mental health than chronic pain. MCC patients reported lower satisfaction with consultation duration, information about harms/benefits, discussion of other treatments, and costs.

Why it matters

As commercial cannabis clinics proliferate, this study raises questions about whether the rapid-access model may trade off consultation quality. Patients in general healthcare settings reported better experiences, suggesting integration into mainstream medicine may produce better outcomes.

The numbers in context

2,394 respondents; 79.3% from specialized clinics. MCC patients were 3.5 years younger on average. MCC: less likely to get oral products (OR=0.4), higher cannabis use disorder (OR=1.5), more mental health treatment (OR=1.6), less chronic pain (OR=0.7). Lower MCC satisfaction: consultation time (OR=0.8), harm/benefit info (OR=0.7), other treatment discussion (OR=0.5), costs (OR=0.6).

How the study worked

Anonymous online convenience survey of 2,394 Australian adults self-reporting prescribed medical cannabis in the preceding 12 months. Compared patient profiles, treatment patterns, and satisfaction between specialized cannabis clinics and generalist health settings.

What this study cannot tell us

Convenience sample may not represent all medical cannabis patients. Self-reported data. Cross-sectional design cannot determine if clinic type causes satisfaction differences. Unmeasured factors may explain patient differences between settings.

How to read the evidence

Moderate: large survey with statistical comparisons, though convenience sampling and self-report limit generalizability.

When this study was published

2025 study.

The bigger picture

The growth of specialized cannabis clinics globally raises questions about quality of care versus access. This study suggests that while these clinics increase access, they may provide less comprehensive care than traditional medical settings.

Questions still open

Do specialized cannabis clinics provide adequate screening for cannabis use disorder? Would regulatory standards for consultation duration and patient education improve MCC quality? Is the generalist model scalable enough to replace specialized clinics?

Common questions

Why were cannabis clinic patients less satisfied?

They reported shorter consultations, less information about harms and benefits, less discussion of alternative treatments, and higher costs compared to patients in general healthcare settings.

Did the two groups of patients differ?

Yes. Cannabis clinic patients were younger, more employed, more likely to seek treatment for mental health conditions, and had higher rates of cannabis use disorder compared to generalist setting patients.

Read the original research

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

Journal of cannabis research, 7(1), 83

View on PubMed ↗Publisher’s paper ↗

Citation

Lintzeris, Nicholas; Arnold, Jonathon C; McGregor, Iain S; Mills, Llewellyn. (2025). Consumer perspectives of accessing medicinal cannabis treatment from cannabis clinics versus generalist health settings in Australia.. Journal of cannabis research, 7(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-025-00338-z