Knowledge and attitudes of Italian medical oncologists and palliative care physicians toward medical use of cannabis in cancer care: a national survey

Knowledge and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis and complementary and integrative medicine (CIM): a survey of healthcare professionals working in a cancer hospital in Australia

PURPOSE

We investigated attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to medicinal cannabis (MC) and complementary and integrative medicine (CIM), including individual therapies, such as acupuncture, massage, herbs, dietary supplements, nutrition and exercise. We explored whether healthcare occupation influenced attitudes to CIM and MC; referral pathways for advice on CIM; and interest in a pharmacy service to evaluate herbs and supplements.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey. All clinical staff at a comprehensive cancer hospital were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire about CIM and MC. We used descriptive analysis to describe the respondent's knowledge and attitudes, and Fisher's exact test to test for differences by occupation, length of time at the hospital and age.

RESULTS

Most of the 116 HCPs respondents supported integrating CIM into cancer care (94.8%) and wanted to learn more (90%) and to understand benefits and contraindications. Most respondents believed that CIM (87.9%) could benefit patients with cancer, and MC could benefit those with advanced cancer (49-51%). Whilst just over half (52.6%) felt confident discussing CIM with patients, only 10% felt they had sufficient knowledge to discuss MC. Most felt they did not have sufficient knowledge to specifically discuss mind and body practices (63.8%) or herbs and supplements (79%). HCPs (63%) would be more inclined to allow use of herbs and supplements with cancer treatment if a pharmacy service was available to evaluate interactions. Occupation, length of time at hospital and age influenced confidence and knowledge about CIM.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of evidence-based CIM and MC into cancer care is hampered by a lack of knowledge of benefits and contraindications, and gaps in education. Effective and safe integration may require targeted development of services such as pharmacy to evaluate the safety of herbs and supplements, and inclusion of cancer specialists who have received training in individual CIM therapies and MC.

Healthcare provider and medical cannabis patient communication regarding referral and medication substitution: the Canadian context

Background

Patients use medical cannabis for a wide array of illnesses and symptoms, and many substitute cannabis for pharmaceuticals. This substitution often occurs without physician oversight, raising patient safety concerns. We aimed to characterize substitution and doctor-patient communication patterns in Canada, where there is a mature market and national regulatory system for medical cannabis.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional online survey in May 2021 for seven days with adult Canadian federally-authorized medical cannabis patients (N = 2697) registered with two global cannabis companies to evaluate patient perceptions of Primary Care Provider (PCP) knowledge of medical cannabis and communication regarding medical cannabis with PCPs, including PCP authorization of licensure and substitution of cannabis for other medications.

Results

Most participants (62.7%, n = 1390) obtained medical cannabis authorization from their PCP. Of those who spoke with their PCP about medical cannabis (82.2%, n = 2217), 38.6% (n = 857) reported that their PCP had “very good” or “excellent” knowledge of medical cannabis and, on average, were moderately confident in their PCP’s ability to integrate medical cannabis into treatment. Participants generally reported higher ratings for secondary care providers, with 82.8% (n = 808) of participants rating their secondary care provider’s knowledge about medical cannabis as “very good” or “excellent.” Overall, 47.1% (n = 1269) of participants reported substituting cannabis for pharmaceuticals or other substances (e.g., alcohol, tobacco/nicotine). Of these, 31.3% (n = 397) reported a delay in informing their PCP of up to 6 months or more, and 34.8% (n = 441) reported that their PCP was still not aware of their substitution. Older, female participants had higher odds of disclosing cannabis substitution to their PCPs.

Conclusion

Most of the surveyed Canadian medical cannabis patients considered their PCPs knowledgeable about cannabis and were confident in their PCPs’ ability to integrate cannabis into treatment plans. However, many surveyed patients substituted cannabis for other medications without consulting their PCPs. These results suggest a lack of integration between mainstream healthcare and medical cannabis that may be improved through physician education and clinical experience.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42238-022-00141-0.

Backgrounds and Trainings in Cannabis Therapeutics of Dispensary Personnel

PURPOSE

A growing body of scientific research indicates that oncology teams tend to offer individuals with cancer little clinical advice regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) and that individuals with cancer instead turn to cannabis dispensaries for MC guidance. Our objective was to investigate dispensary personnel's backgrounds and trainings in MC advising.

METHODS

The study design was semistructured interviews across 13 states with cannabis dispensary personnel in managerial or client-facing positions. Of 38 recruited, 26 (68%) completed interview. The primary outcome was training in MC advising. Researchers targeted thematic saturation and adhered to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

RESULTS

Of 26 participants, 54% were female, with an average age of 40 (range: 22-64) years. Half worked in client-facing roles; half worked in managerial ones. Study participants endorsed passionate commitment to their profession, often motivated by personal experience with MC therapeutics. Cannabis dispensaries often privileged sales skills over cannabis therapeutics knowledge when hiring, resulting in uneven baseline levels of cannabis therapeutics expertise among staff. Most participants reported workplace cannabis therapeutics training to be unstandardized and weak. They described dispensary personnel as resourceful in pursuing cannabis knowledge, self-financing learning in off-hours, sampling dispensary products, and exchanging knowledge. Nearly half the participants called for quality, standardized cannabis therapeutics training for dispensary personnel.

CONCLUSION

The many oncology teams who defer to dispensary personnel regarding MC advising rely on a workforce who views themselves as unevenly trained. Further research should include a national survey of cannabis dispensary personnel to learn whether these findings hold true in a larger sample. If so, the oncology community must determine the best approach to clinically advising individuals with cancer about MC.

Oncology Fellows' Clinical Discussions, Perceived Knowledge, and Formal Training Regarding Medical Cannabis Use: A National Survey Study

PURPOSE

Evidence suggests that patients with cancer frequently use cannabis with medicinal intent and desire clinical guidance from providers. We aimed to determine whether oncology training adequately prepares fellows to discuss medical cannabis.

METHODS

A national survey study was conducted from January to March 2021. A questionnaire assessing oncology fellows' practices regarding cannabis recommendations in cancer care and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with conventional care for cancer-related symptoms was developed and sent to 155 US-based oncology training programs to distribute to trainees.

RESULTS

Forty programs from 25 states participated; of the 462 trainees across these programs, 189 responded (response rate of 40%). Of the participants, 52% were female; 52% were White, 33% Asian, and 5% Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent reported that they discussed medical cannabis with more than five patients in the preceding year; however, only 13% felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related clinical recommendations. Twenty-four percent reported having received formal training regarding medical cannabis. Oncology fellows who reported having received prior training in medical cannabis were significantly more likely to discuss cannabis with patients (risk ratio: 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; P = .002) and feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis recommendations (risk ratio: 5.06; 95% CI, 2.33 to 10.99; P < .001). Many viewed the botanical as a useful adjunctive therapy that was at least as effective as conventional treatments for anorexia/cachexia (72%), nausea/vomiting (45%), and pain (41%).

CONCLUSION

Most oncology trainees not only reported engaging in discussions regarding medical cannabis with patients but also considered themselves insufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. The discrepancy between the frequency of cannabis inquiries/discussions at the patient level and comfort/knowledge at the trainee provider level represents an unmet curricular need with implications for both graduate medical education and patient care.