Georgian Doctors Lack Training to Screen or Counsel Patients on Cannabis | Research

The takeaway

Only 36% of primary care physicians in Georgia were familiar with cannabis legislation, fewer than half acknowledged legitimate medical uses, and 88% had never applied diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorders.

Medical educators developing cannabis curricula, healthcare policymakers in legalized jurisdictions, primary care physicians.

88% of Georgian doctors had never applied diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorders

What the researchers found

Among 246 Georgian family physicians surveyed, only 35.6% were familiar with cannabis laws, 26.6% documented cannabis use in patient records, and 88.1% had never used structured criteria to diagnose cannabis use disorders. Time constraints, stigma, and lack of training were the most cited barriers to effective counseling.

Why it matters

As cannabis legalization spreads globally, this study highlights a critical gap: physicians may not be prepared to screen, diagnose, or counsel patients on cannabis use, even years after policy changes. This gap likely exists in many other newly legalized jurisdictions.

The numbers in context

246 physicians surveyed; 96.6% female; 55.7% aged >51; 35.6% familiar with cannabis legislation; 97% associated cannabis with mental health risks; 92.4% with accident risk; <50% acknowledged medical applications; 26.6% documented cannabis use; 88.1% never applied CUD diagnostic criteria; 10 qualitative interviews.

How the study worked

Mixed-method study combining a cross-sectional survey of 246 family physicians using a structured anonymous questionnaire with qualitative interviews of 10 physicians exploring barriers to cannabis-related counseling and documentation.

What this study cannot tell us

Nearly all respondents (96.6%) were female, which may not represent the full physician population. The sample of 246 is modest for national generalization. Self-reported survey data may be subject to social desirability bias. Georgian medical practice context may limit generalizability.

How to read the evidence

Preliminary: Modest sample size (246) from a single country with an unrepresentative gender distribution and self-reported data.

When this study was published

Published in 2025, reflecting post-legalization medical practice in Georgia.

The bigger picture

This study reflects a broader pattern seen in many jurisdictions: cannabis policy moves faster than medical education. When physicians lack knowledge about cannabis laws, pharmacology, and clinical screening, patients may receive inadequate care or misinformation.

Questions still open

How do physician knowledge levels in Georgia compare to other newly legalized jurisdictions? Would targeted medical education programs improve screening rates? Are patients discussing cannabis use with other healthcare providers instead?

Common questions

Why were nearly all surveyed physicians female?

The 96.6% female representation likely reflects the demographics of primary care medicine in Georgia, where family medicine is a female-dominated specialty. This may limit generalizability to the broader physician population.

What barriers prevent doctors from screening for cannabis use?

The qualitative interviews identified time constraints during clinical visits, social stigma around discussing cannabis, and lack of formal training on cannabis screening and diagnosis as the most common barriers.

Read the original research

Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge and Counseling on Cannabis Use in the Country of Georgia: Results of a Mixed-Method Exploratory Study.

Journal of primary care & community health, 16, 21501319251394522

View on PubMed ↗Publisher’s paper ↗

Citation

Nadiradze, Aleksandra; Khetsuriani, Ketevani; Talakvadze, Tamari; Gulbani, Mariam; Ratiani, Elene; Nebieridze, Anano; Gaprindashvili, Nino; Tabagari, Nino; Lunze, Karsten; Nadareishvili, Ilia. (2025). Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge and Counseling on Cannabis Use in the Country of Georgia: Results of a Mixed-Method Exploratory Study.. Journal of primary care & community health, 16, 21501319251394522. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251394522