Cannabis Use Common in Teens With Chronic Pain, Study Finds
These teens used the drug to alleviate their physical symptoms, as well as anxiety, poor sleep, or nausea.
Researchers said teenagers who use marijuana increase their risk of developing adverse effects associated with the drug, such as worsening anxiety and depression.
'What concerns me most is the heightened risk of developing cannabis use disorder,' said Joe Kossowsky, PhD, MMSc, an assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School in Boston, the lead author of the study.
The rising potency of tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive substance in cannabis, may compound the risks for adverse effects among youth who use the drug, he said.
Kossowsky said he conducted the research to find out the extent to which teens with chronic pain used marijuana.
Between 2021 and 2024, he and his colleagues recruited teens aged 14-19 years with diagnosed chronic pain conditions from a Boston pediatric pain clinic. Of 245 teens, 14 said they had used cannabis for recreational purposes and 48 said they had used the drug to manage their chronic pain.
The participants in the study completed surveys detailing the characteristics of their pain, frequency and reason for cannabis use, adverse effects, and beliefs around cannabis. They also filled out surveys detailing the extent to which pain interfered with daily activities such as running or standing, called pain interference.
The age of first cannabis use ranged from age 7-19 years (mean age, 15.3 years). Overall, teens reported having used cannabis over the previous year on a median of six to nine occasions. Most teens used edibles (51.6%), vapes (45.2%), and joints (43.5%) to consume marijuana.
The group younger than 18 years who said they had used cannabis for any reason reported slightly higher scores of pain interference than the group that had not used the drug. Their depressive symptoms scores were also higher than those who had not used.
Youth using marijuana to manage symptoms were a year younger on average than those who said they used it recreationally (mean difference, −0.7 years; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.1 years; P = .04) and also reported greater functional disability (mean difference, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.1-12.6; P = .01).
Kossowsky told Medscape Medical News that he also found that those using marijuana to manage symptoms consumed it more frequently and had started at a younger age than those who used it recreationally; findings that were not included in the current research but that he said he plans on publishing in another study.
Initially, cannabis affects the endocannabinoid system, decreasing pain at the level of peripheral nerves, the spinal cord, and the brain.
'It does initially provide the relief that they're looking for,' Kossowsky said.
But the nerve receptors in these areas become less responsive over time, necessitating heavier use of the drug to achieve the same level of relief. This cycle can increase the risk that a teen develops cannabis use disorder, Kossowsky said.
The long-term consequences of cannabis use are amplified during the developmental window of adolescence, said Sharon Levy, MD, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children's Hospital, Boston. The part of the brain that pursues pleasure is developing rapidly, and dopamine receptors that signal pleasure are at their lifetime densest.
'There's a drive to do things that are going to cause a lot of dopamine firing,' which can include using cannabis, Levey said.
Meanwhile, the prefrontal cortex, the seat of executive functions that supports sound decision-making, is still immature and cannot be counted on for reliable input, Levy said. This developmental imbalance is the reason that substance use is particularly common among adolescents, Levy said.
Cannabis use during adolescence is associated with worse functional outcomes, such as diminished verbal memory and attention, poorer educational achievements, mental health disorders like anxiety, depression, psychosis, and addiction.
Kossowsky said he hopes his study will alert clinicians to the challenges faced by adolescents with chronic pain.
'I'm hoping there will definitely be more screening done and interventional work,' he said.
Participants in the study who used cannabis to manage chronic pain tended to think that the drug was safe because it was natural, the study showed. By contrast, their peers who did not consume cannabis were more aware of the risks of such usage, including worsening their medical problems and developing addiction to the substance.
Clinicians should also treat the pain, anxiety, and disrupted sleep that prompts patients to use cannabis.
'You can't take that away from them without providing them with something else that helps,' Kossowsky said.
The first-line treatment is an integrative approach combining cognitive behavior therapy with physiotherapy. Medications can be added as needed, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to alleviate anxiety.
Kossowsky said he is currently tracking the same cohort of teens with chronic pain over 5 years.
'This study is a first effort to shed light on a complex issue,' Kossowsky said. 'But now what we're seeing has definitely warranted going a step further.'
This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
19 minutes ago
- Fast Company
A new FDA-approved device could change how Americans lose weight
Small wearable patches that continuously scan your blood and zap numbers to your smartphone are about to be everywhere. Once the sole domain of people with diabetes, glucose monitors are gaining popularity as a health tracking accessory not that different from an Apple Watch or an Oura Ring. On Wednesday, the FDA approved a glucose monitoring system from the startup Signos for weight management – a first for the tech, which represents a growing corner of the digital wellness space. 'Everyone deserves access to insights that help them live healthier, longer, more vibrant lives,' Signos CEO Sharam Fouladgar-Mercer said in a press release. 'Signos isn't just about data; it's about giving people ownership over their health and weight journeys in a way never before seen.' Signos designed an app that sets glucose range goals based on individual needs and tailors them over time, encouraging its users to make healthy lifestyle choices to meet them. The app pairs with the Stelo continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor patch made by Dexcom, which already sells its devices over the counter for around $100 a month. 'This is the first-ever FDA clearance for a system for weight that isn't a pharmacological intervention, isn't a surgical intervention,' Fouladgar-Mercer told STAT. FDA approval is an expensive, time-intensive process, but obtaining the clearance means a Signos subscription could be covered by HSA and FSA plans and potentially be reimbursed by insurance in the future. Signos sells its plans for $129 for six months, which includes glucose sensors and access to its app, which converts real-time blood sugar data into health insights and tips. The company can also now boast about being the 'world's first and only FDA-cleared app and CGM for weight management and wellness,' which might take it pretty far in a soon-to-be crowded market. As is the case with all technology these days, Signos uses AI to offer personalized recommendations based on the data it logs. Users can also track their food and exercise within the company's app, blending that data with glucose monitoring to make changes to their behavior and diet. Fouladgar-Mercer believes that bariatric surgery patients and some people using GLP-1s for weight loss will want the additional insights possible with the Signos app. The app also offers an alternative non-pharmaceutical path for people looking for new ways to succeed in their weight management goals, and could provide an off-ramp for former GLP-1 users looking to maintain their results with behavioral changes. One piece of the MAHA movement Obsessively quantifying the self right down to your blood sugar levels isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it is a major health goal for the Trump administration. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is championing health tracking devices as part of the Make America Healthy Again movement, which is pursuing disparate health goals from regulating ultra-processed foods to investigating well-studied vaccines, sowing doubt about life-saving shots in the process. 'It's a way… people can take control over their own health. They can take responsibility,' Kennedy said at a recent House Subcommittee on Health hearing. 'They can see, as you know, what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.' Beyond RFK Jr., the U.S. government is poised to have a major glucose tracking booster in the administration. In June, Trump swapped his previous surgeon general nominee out in favor of Dr. Casey Means, a wellness industry figure who co-founded a blood glucose monitoring startup called Levels. Like Signos, that company sells subscription access to an app, pairing custom software with off-the-shelf glucose monitors made by Dexcom. Unlike Signos, Levels is not FDA approved for weight management and is marketed for general wellness. Kennedy, a skeptic of weight loss drugs, has advocated for dietary and behavioral changes over GLP-1s to reverse the most worrying U.S. health trends. 'We think that wearables are a key to the MAHA agenda — Making America Healthy Again,'' Kennedy said. 'My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.'
WebMD
19 minutes ago
- WebMD
The Real Risks of Turning to AI for Therapy
Aug. 20, 2025 — Whenever Luke W Russell needs to work through something, they turn to ChatGPT. (Luke uses they/them pronouns.) 'I've wept as I've navigated things,' said the Indianapolis filmmaker, who uses the chatbot to pick apart intrusive thoughts or navigate traumatic memories. 'I've had numerous times when what ChatGPT is saying to me is so real, so powerful, and I feel so deeply seen.' Russell's experience reflects a broader, growing reality: Many people are turning to chatbots for mental health support — for everything from managing anxiety and processing grief to coping with work conflicts and defusing marital spats. More than half of adults ages 18-54 — and a quarter of adults 55 and up — say they would be comfortable talking with an AI chatbot about their mental health, according to a 2025 survey by the Harris Poll and the American Psychological Association (APA). The catch: OpenAI's ChatGPT and other chatbots — like Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — are not designed for this. Even AI products promoted as emotional health tools — like Replika, Wysa, Youper, and MindDoc — were not built on validated psychological methods, said psychologist C. Vaile Wright, PhD, senior director of the APA's Office of Health Care Innovation. 'I would argue that there isn't really any commercially approved, AI-assisted therapy at the moment,' said Wright. 'You've got a whole lot of chatbots where there is no research, there's no psychological science, and there are no subject matter experts.' Critics warn that AI's potential for bias, lack of true empathy, and limited human oversight could actually endanger users' mental health, especially among vulnerable groups like children, teens, people with mental health conditions, and those experiencing suicidal thoughts. The growing concern has led to the emergence of the terms 'ChatGPT psychosis' or ' AI psychosis ' — referring to the potential harmful mental health effects of interacting with AI. It's even drawing attention from lawmakers: This month, Illinois enacted restrictions on AI in mental health care, banning its use for therapy and prohibiting mental health professionals from using AI to communicate with clients or make therapeutic decisions. (Similar restrictions have already been passed in Nevada and Utah.) But none of this is stopping people from turning to chatbots for support, especially amid clinician shortages, rising therapy costs, and inadequate mental health insurance coverage. 'People have absolutely reported that experiences with chatbots can be helpful,' said Wright. The Draw of Chatbots for Mental Health Data shows we're facing a massive shortage of mental health workers, especially in remote and rural areas, said psychologist Elizabeth Stade, PhD, a researcher in the Computational Psychology and Well-Being Lab at Stanford University in Stanford, CA. 'Of adults in the United States with significant mental health needs, only about half are able to access any form of treatment. With youth, that number is closer to 75%,' said Jessica Schleider, PhD, a child and adolescent psychologist at Northwestern University in Chicago. 'The provider shortage is clearly contributing to why so many folks are turning to their devices and, now increasingly, to generative AI to fill that gap.' Unlike a therapist, a chatbot is available 24/7. 'When [people] need help the most, it is typically after hours,' said Wright, who suggested the right AI tool could potentially supplement human therapy. 'When it's 2 a.m. and you're in crisis, could this help provide some support?' Probably, she said. Results of the first clinical trial of an AI-generative therapy chatbot showed 'significant, clinically meaningful reductions in depression, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms' within four to eight weeks, said lead study author Michael V. Heinz, MD, a professor at Dartmouth College's Geisel School of Medicine and faculty affiliate at the Center for Technology and Behavioral Health in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The chatbot — Therabot, developed at Dartmouth — combines extensive training in evidence-based psychotherapy interventions with advanced generative AI. 'We saw high levels of user engagement — six-plus hours on average across the study,' Heinz said. Participants said using Therabot was like talking to a human therapist. But results are early, and more studies are needed, Heinz said. Access and affordability drew Russell to ChatGPT, they said. 'I didn't set out to use ChatGPT as a therapist. I quit therapy in January due to income dropping. I was already using ChatGPT on the regular for work, and then I started using it for personal idea exploration. ... I've never had a therapist who could move as fast as ChatGPT and ignore miscellaneous things,' they said. Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects is that chatbots don't judge. 'People are reluctant to be judged, and so they are often reluctant to disclose symptoms,' said Jonathan Gratch, PhD, professor of computer science and psychology at the University of Southern California, who has researched the topic. One of his studies found that military veterans were more likely to share PTSD symptoms with a virtual chatbot than in a survey. When Chatbots Are Harmful Most people don't know how AI works — they might believe it's always objective and factual, said Henry A. Willis, PhD, a psychologist and professor at the University of Maryland in College Park. But often, the data they're trained on is not representative of minority groups, leading to bias and technology-mediated racism, Willis said. 'We know that Black and brown communities are not adequately reflected in the majority of large-scale mental health research studies,' Willis said. So a chatbot's clinical symptom information or treatment recommendations may not be relevant or helpful to those from minority backgrounds. There's also an impersonal aspect. Chatbots do what's called ecological fallacy, said H. Andrew Schwartz, PhD, associate professor of computer science at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, NY. They treat scattered comments like random data points, making assumptions based on group-level data that may not reflect the reality of individuals. And who's accountable if something goes wrong? Chatbots have been linked to cases involving suggestions of violence and self-harm, including the death of a teen by suicide. Some chatbots marketed for companionship and emotional support were designed with another incentive: to make money. Wright is concerned that they may unconditionally validate patients, telling them what they want to hear so they stay on the platform — 'even if what they're telling you is actually harmful or they're validating harmful responses from the user.' None of these conversations are bound by HIPAA regulations, either, Wright pointed out. 'So even though they may be asking for personal information or sharing your personal information, they have no legal obligation to protect it.' The Psychological Implications of Forming Emotional Bonds With AI In an opinion article published in April in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, psychologists expressed concern about the long-term implications of forming emotional bonds with AI. Chatbots can replace users' real relationships, crowding out romantic partners, co-workers, and friends. This may mean that individuals begin to 'trust' the opinion and feedback of chatbots over real people, said Willis. 'The ongoing positive reinforcement that can happen instantly from interacting with a chatbot may begin to overshadow any reinforcement from interacting with real people,' who may not be able to communicate as quickly, he said. 'These emotional bonds may also impair people's ability to have a healthy level of skepticism and critical evaluation skills when it comes to the responses of AI chatbots.' Gratch compared it to hunger and food. 'We're biologically wired to seek out food when we get hungry. It is the same with social relationships. If we haven't had a relationship in a while, we may feel lonely, and then that motivates us to go out and reach out to people.' But studies suggest that social interaction with a computer program, like a chatbot, can sate a person's social needs and demotivate them to go out with friends, he said. 'That may have long-term consequences for increased loneliness. For example, research has shown people who compulsively use Facebook tend to be much more lonely.' Counseling with a therapist involves 'a natural curiosity about the individual and their experiences that AI cannot replicate,' Willis said. 'AI chatbots respond to prompts, whereas therapists can observe and ask clinical questions based on one's body language, a synthesis of their history, and other things that may not be conscious to the client — or things the client may not even be aware are important to their mental health well-being.' The Future of AI Therapy "I think there is going to be a future where you have really well-developed [chatbots] for addressing mental health that are scientifically driven and where they are ensuring that there are guardrails in place when somebody is in crisis. We're just not quite there yet,' said the APA's Wright. 'We may get to a place where they're even reimbursed by insurance,' she said. 'I do think increasingly we are going to see providers begin to adopt these technology tools as a way to meet their patients' needs.' But for now, her message is clear: The chatbots are not there yet. 'Ideally, chatbot design should encourage sustained, meaningful interaction with the primary purpose of delivering evidence-based therapy,' said Dartmouth's Heinz. Until then, don't rely on them too heavily, the experts cautioned — and remember, they are not a substitute for professional help.
Medscape
19 minutes ago
- Medscape
GLP-1s Don't Increase Suicide Risk
It's not uncommon for me, when discussing a GLP-1 medication with patients, to have them inquire about the drug's purported risk in increasing suicidal ideation. What has never occurred? Patients asking about the possible benefits of GLP-1 medications to mood and to their decreasing the risk of suicidal ideation. On the face of existing data, that's odd considering there is far more substantial evidence that GLP-1 users see improvements in mood: with no increase —and possibly decreased — risk of suicide. It's not odd, though, when considering things through the lens of how risk is overestimated by the public along with the lens of weight bias where, at least with obesity medications, negative findings — however small, tenuous, or early — tend to be readily internalized and amplified, while positive findings are often minimized and ignored. Where and how did the concern about suicide arise? On July 11, 2023, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released a statement that, consequent to the Icelandic medicines agency's highlighting three case reports involving suicide among GLP-1 users, they would be investigating further. The EMA's statement rightly and explicitly noted, ' The presence of a signal does not necessarily mean that a medicine caused the adverse event in question .' But much of the media didn't seem to care how premature or unsubstantiated the putative risk, and this story definitely had legs gaining scary coverage in most major media outlets. By way of example, the BBC, in its story headlined Weight-loss jabs investigated for suicide risk , rather than responsibly covering the prematurity of concluding anything at all, chose this quote from the EMA's statement to highlight, ' A signal is information on a new or known adverse event that is potentially caused by a medicine and that warrants further investigation .' No doubt this sort of reporting is in part why, to this day, patients still recount suicidality as a concern when discussing these medications. But what has happened on this file since the July 2023 initiated investigation of those three purported cases? While nonexhaustive, here's a brief rundown: In April 2024, the EMA's own investigation exonerated GLP-1 medications as a source of increased suicide risk in April 2024. The US FDA also conducted its own investigation and similarly found no ties between GLP-1s and suicide risk. In June 2024. a paper was published demonstrating no increase risk in suicidality among 36,083 adults prescribed GLP-1 medications. In August 2024, a paper was published investigating GLP-1 medications and their impact on 22 neurological and psychiatric outcomes over 12 months. It found no impact among 23,386 GLP-1 users. In September 2024, a paper was published demonstrating no increased risk in suicidality among a cohort of 124,517 adults prescribed GLP-1 medications over a 1-year period. In October 2024, a paper was published demonstrating a 33% reduction in suicide ideation or attempts among 6912 adolescents with obesity for those who initiated treatment with GLP-1s over 3 years of follow-up. In February 2025. a paper was published of a nationwide (France) case-time-control of individuals who had attempted or died by suicide which found no linkage with GLP-1 use. In May 2025. a paper was published demonstrating in a meta-analysis of doubly blind randomized controlled trials that, among the 107,000 patients studied, GLP-1 use was not associated with increased risk of psychiatric adverse events or worsening depressive symptoms relative to placebo. Instead, GLP-1 use was associated with improvements in both physical and mental health-related quality of life. Finally, in June 2025, a paper was published describing a multinational self-controlled case series analysis of suicide or self-harm attempts in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom that yes, again, demonstrated no increased risk among GLP-1 users and that, compared with the nontreatment period, lower suicide attempt or self-harm risk following GLP-1 treatment was observed, especially after longer periods of treatment. Negative publication bias appears to extend beyond academia into society at large. However, it manifests somewhat differently. The studies receiving the most attention are often those reporting literally negative (ie, adverse) outcomes. In contrast, more rigorous studies that challenge these negative findings, even if publicized, rarely achieve comparable societal penetration or awareness.
