Background While medical marijuana use is legal in more than half of U.S. states, evidence is limited about the preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe medical marijuana. We asked whether current medical school and graduate medical educational training prepare physicians to prescribe medical marijuana. Methods We conducted a national survey of U.S. medical school curriculum deans, a similar survey of residents and fellows at Washington University in St. Louis, and a query of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory database for keywords associated with medical marijuana. Results Surveys were obtained from 101 curriculum deans, and 258 residents and fellows. 145 schools were included in the curriculum search. The majority of deans (66.7%) reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, and 25.0% reported that their graduates were not at all prepared to answer questions about medical marijuana. The vast majority of residents and fellows (89.5%) felt not at all prepared to prescribe medical marijuana, while 35.3% felt not at all prepared to answer questions, and 84.9% reported receiving no education in medical school or residency on medical marijuana. Finally, only 9% of medical school curriculums document in the AAMC Curriculum Inventory database content on medical marijuana. Conclusions Our study highlights a fundamental mismatch between the state-level legalization of medical marijuana and the lack of preparation of physicians-in-training to prescribe it. With even more states on the cusp of legalizing medical marijuana, physician training should adapt to encompass this new reality of medical practice.

PurposeInternet-based technologies are increasingly being utilized for research studies. However, it is not known whether using internet-based approaches will effectively engage participants from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.Methods967 participants were recruited and offered genetic ancestry results. We evaluated viewing internet-based genetic ancestry results among participants who expressed high interest in obtaining the results.Results64% of participants stated that they were very or extremely interested in their genetic ancestry results. Among interested participants, individuals with a high school diploma (N=473) viewed their results 19% of the time relative to 4% of the 145 participants without a diploma (p<0.0001). Similarly, 22% of participants with household income above the federal poverty level (N=286) viewed their results relative to 10% of the 314 participants living below the federal poverty level (p<0.0001). Among interested participants both with a high school degree and living above the poverty level, self-identified Caucasians were more likely to view results than self-identified African Americans (p<0.0001), and females were more likely to view results than males (p=0.0007).ConclusionIn an underserved population, engagement in internet-based research was low despite high reported interest. This suggests that explicit strategies should be developed to increase diversity in internet-based research.