Understanding the Physician Gap: A Scoping Review of Medical Cannabis Knowledge in the United States
A Shifting Landscape Without a Compass
As medical cannabis moves from the margins of medicine to the center of clinical discussion, U.S. physicians are finding themselves in a curious position—both gatekeepers and strangers to the field. Despite legalization in 47 states and broad public support, clinicians continue to operate in a policy fog, with minimal training, inconsistent guidance, and uneven confidence when advising patients.
The 2025 scoping review by Yusupov and colleagues, published in Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoids, offers a panoramic view of this reality. By analyzing 41 studies published between 2013 and 2025, the authors reveal a profession grappling with uncertainty and a pressing need for education and structure.
What the Review Found
Physicians Believe, But Barely Understand
Across specialties—from oncology to dermatology—most physicians recognize Cannabis as potentially therapeutic for conditions like chronic pain, nausea, loss of appetite, and depression. Yet, they simultaneously report low confidence in counseling patients or managing use. The review highlights a consistent “knowledge gap” spanning basic pharmacology, cannabinoid composition, dosing, and adverse effects.
Specialty-Specific Comfort Zones
Oncologists and palliative care physicians expressed the most positive views, citing symptom relief and improved end-of-life quality.
Dermatologists and neurologists were cautiously curious, mainly regarding topical and seizure-related applications.
Obstetricians and pediatricians remained the most skeptical, largely due to limited safety data and fear of legal repercussions.
Pain management and primary care clinicians supported cannabis use but emphasized the lack of clear dosing guidance.
Geography and Experience Matter
Physicians practicing in states with medical Cannabis laws, and those with more years of clinical experience, were more likely to recommend Cannabis or discuss it confidently with patients. Younger clinicians and those in prohibition states tended to express higher levels of discomfort.
Education: The Missing Link
Medical trainees consistently reported insufficient exposure to Cannabis science. While most favored legalization and medical use, they admitted poor understanding of cannabinoid pharmacology. Faculty and curriculum deans agreed: medical education has not kept pace with policy reform.
Why This Matters for PRC+ Readers
The findings confirm what many clinical educators and researchers already experience—physicians are expected to make informed decisions about Cannabis without a reliable evidence base or structured learning path. This creates risks for both patients and practitioners:
Patients receive uneven care and potentially inaccurate information.
Clinicians face ethical and legal uncertainty when recommending cannabis.
Medical institutions risk perpetuating stigma by neglecting formal training.
At Physicians Research Center Plus, these challenges underscore our mission: to provide data-driven education that bridges scientific research with clinical realities. Structured CME programs, journal clubs, and interprofessional modules can help close this gap and prepare physicians for the rapidly evolving cannabinoid landscape.
Key Takeaways
Knowledge gaps persist: Across all specialties, physicians report low confidence in cannabis counseling and pharmacology.
Legal and geographic variation influences clinical comfort and practice.
Oncology and palliative care remain the most cannabis-supportive fields.
Formal education is lagging; physicians and trainees alike want structured training.
Clear clinical guidelines are urgently needed to align medical, legal, and public expectations.
This review complements prior PRC+ discussions on clinician preparedness and cannabinoid education. Together, they highlight a national need for curriculum reform and continuing education that integrates both pharmacology and ethics—preparing physicians not just to recommend cannabis, but to understand it.
Conclusion
The Yusupov review captures a defining moment in modern medicine: a profession aware of its ignorance, yet poised to evolve. Physicians seem to overwhelmingly support further education on Cannabis, not as a novelty, but as a necessity for competent care. The science is no longer the barrier—our systems of training and communication are. If continuing education, curriculum reform, and evidence-based guidelines do not accelerate soon, cannabis will remain a public health experiment conducted without adequate clinicians.
PRC+ stands for precisely this translation—turning complex data into clinical clarity so that future physicians are equipped to treat, not guess.
PRC+ NOTE
At PRC+, we create custom educational modules and continuing education programs on cannabis and cannabinoid science for clinicians, educators, and allied health professionals.
Reach out to our team to develop accredited or non-accredited content for your institution—bridging knowledge gaps, reducing stigma, and equipping practitioners to meet patients where they are.
Contact us: Prctrials.info@gmail.com