Public Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behavioral Intention Regarding Medical Cannabis in Belgium

ABSTRACT

Growing evidence on medical cannabis has moved its legislation forward in various countries, which has increased research on stakeholder reactions. While various studies looked at experts and users, research on public perceptions is scarce. This study aims to (1) examine the relationships between knowledge, perceptions, and behavioral intention toward medical cannabis, and (2) identify and profile key segments within the general public. An online survey was conducted among 656 respondents in Belgium. Findings showed that both subjective and objective knowledge are relatively poor, while risk/benefit perceptions and behavioral intention are much more positive. Subjective and objective knowledge as well as social trust have a positive influence on benefit perceptions and a negative influence on risk perceptions. In turn, risk and benefit perceptions are key determinants of behavioral intention, but in opposite directions. Furthermore, cluster analysis identified a cautious (23% of the sample), positive (50%), and enthusiastic cluster (27%). In terms of socio-demographic profile, older and highly educated people were significantly more represented in the latter two clusters. While our study demonstrated that cannabis is well accepted for medical purposes, research is needed to further validate the relationships between knowledge, perceptions, and (intended) behavior in different settings and policy contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Behavioral intention
• knowledge
• medical cannabis
• perceptions
• survey
• Belgium

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Authorship confirmation

MP: Conceptualization (lead); Methodology (lead); Investigation (lead); formal analysis (supporting); writing – original draft (equal); review and editing (equal). GH: Conceptualization (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal). HDS: Conceptualization (supporting); Methodology (supporting); investigation (supporting); formal analysis (lead); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (lead).

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2023.2209893

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.