Qualitative interviews reveal diverse motivations and access challenges for medicinal cannabis users, indicating nuanced pathways.
Medicinal cannabis has been legally available in Australia since 2016. The current study examined the motivations for seeking medicinal cannabis and the pathways through which Australians accessed it. Brief semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 adults who self-reported medicinal cannabis use within the past 12 months. Informants were recruited at two cannabis-related events in Queensland and New South Wales. Interviews explored motivations, pathways to access, and experiences with medicinal cannabis. Thematic analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke's six-step framework which identified two key themes: "The Diverse Drivers of Medicinal Cannabis Use" and "Tales of Access: Journeys to Medicinal Cannabis." Informants reported varied motivations for medicinal cannabis use, including managing treatment-resistant medical conditions and avoiding the legal consequences of illicit cannabis use. Some described transitioning from recreational to medicinal use, with dual-use (i.e., both recreational and medicinal) motives described in the sample. Accessibility was reported as straightforward, through telehealth consultations and single-purpose dispensaries facilitating prescriptions. Informants reported financial barriers to accessing medicinal cannabis products and frustrations with initial prescriptions of cannabis oil rather than cannabis flower. Informants reported limited knowledge of product constituents and dosages. The study highlights the nuanced motivations and pathways to medicinal cannabis in Australia, including legal and medical drivers. Accessibility was described as simple through telehealth, single-purpose dispensaries but cost remained a barrier. Dual usage raises concerns about the risks associated with medicinal cannabis use. More qualitative research is needed to better understand the behaviour and risks facing medicinal cannabis consumers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dawson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: