Research study · Quality of Life Research · 2026
Health-related quality of life in patients receiving medicinal cannabis: systematic review and meta-analysis of primary research findings 2015-2025
Verified on PubMed Systematic review or meta-analysis
A 2026 meta-analysis in Quality of Life Research tested medicinal cannabis in Chronic Disease. The results were mixed but leaned positive. This review shows that people taking medicinal cannabis often report better quality of life, but most of the evidence comes from studies without a comparison group, so it cannot prove the treatment caused the.
In plain language
Study overview
This review looked at many earlier studies of people who were given medicinal cannabis (a prescribed, plant-derived treatment) for long-term health problems. It checked how well those studies explained and measured how people felt about their overall quality of life.
Findings
The results were mixed but leaned positive. Most of the studies that followed people over time found that quality of life improved, while the more reliable controlled trials showed only a small improvement.
The deeper readScientific analysis
Purpose: The global burden of chronic health conditions is significant. Medicinal cannabis (MC) is a legalised treatment option for patients with chronic health conditions in some countries. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an important patient-reported outcome across all chronic health conditions. We aimed to determine how studies of MC therapy justify, measure, and report HRQL, and assess the current evidence for HRQL following MC treatment. Methods: Systematic review searching AMED, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and PsycINFO from Jan 2015 to Apr 2025. Studies using validated HRQL measures pre- and post-MC treatment for any chronic health condition were included. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Completeness of HRQL reporting was evaluated. Meta-analyses for short-term (2 weeks to 3 months), medium-term (>3 to <12 months), and long-term (≥12 months) HRQL outcomes were conducted, with Risk of Bias (RoB) assessed in randomised control trials (RCTs). Results: Of 16,674 retrieved citations, 64 studies were retained: 12 RCTs; 38 cohort studies; 13 case series; 1 non-randomised experimental study. Thirty-nine studies (61%) provided justification for assessing HRQL and five (8%) provided HRQL definitions. Studies used generic (n=52, 81%) or condition-specific (n=12, 19%) HRQL measures, with EQ-5D-5L most commonly used. Meta-analyses: RCTs showed small short-term HRQL improvements (Cohen's d=0.30, p=0.03), with some concerns or low RoB. For observational studies, HRQL improved in all follow-up periods (d=0.43 to 0.74; all p<0.001). HRQL improvement varied between, and within, different health conditions. Conclusion: Few studies provided HRQL definitions, and a third did not explain why they measured HRQL. Future studies should define HRQL and justify the HRQL assessment in the context of research objectives. Overall, improvements in HRQL were observed across studies of patients using MC.
The paper
Citation
Tait MA, Acret L, Costa DSJ, Campbell R, White K, Rutherford C Health-related quality of life in patients receiving medicinal cannabis: systematic review and meta-analysis of primary research findings 2015–2025. Quality of Life Research (2026). PubMed 41621036 · DOI
Limitations the authors noted
Observational meta-analyses prone to attrition bias. Within-group analyses cannot distinguish treatment effect from placebo or natural recovery. Pre-post correlations often unreported; assumed r=0.5. Several studies reported data in ways requiring estimation (e.g., medians converted to means). Possible overlap of participants across multiple reports from the same cohorts.
In practice
Why this matters
This review shows that people taking medicinal cannabis often report better quality of life, but most of the evidence comes from studies without a comparison group, so it cannot prove the treatment caused the improvement. It also shows that many studies did not clearly define what quality of life they were measuring, which makes the results harder to trust and compare. Open questions remain about which conditions, products and doses benefit most, and about longer-term effects.
Browse related research
Condition: Chronic Disease Topic: Medical cannabis
Related on CED Clinic
Back to Daily Research and Patient Questions
Reviewed by Dr. Caplan on October 13, 2026.
This page is general education about a published study. It is not medical advice and does not create a doctor-patient relationship. For care specific to you, book a consultation.
