Health care provider preferences for, and barriers to, cannabis use in cancer care

State of the Science: Health Care Provider Communication of Cannabis Use Among Adults Living with Cancer

Despite medicinal cannabis gaining popularity for managing symptoms in cancer patients, a knowledge gap exists in patient-provider communication crucial for monitoring outcomes, optimizing dosing, and educating healthcare providers to integrate cannabis into treatment plans. Our goal is to understand communication dynamics, identify gaps, and pave the way for effective cannabis communication for individuals living with cancer (PLWC). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCO for articles published between 2013 and July 2023, capturing the key concepts of cannabis use in cancer patients and their communication with healthcare providers in oncology settings. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided the review. Studies were appraised by applying the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals. Of the 2384 articles reviewed, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Three were qualitative studies, and 11 were cross-sectional surveys. All studies were level III evidence. Studies captured patients' and providers' perspectives; five were conducted among cancer patients, and nine were among healthcare providers in oncology settings. Findings revealed variations in healthcare provider recommendations, patient-initiated discussions, and barriers to discussing medical cannabis (MC). The synthesis of this evidence highlights the complexities surrounding MC in oncology settings, including knowledge gaps among healthcare providers, patient-initiated discussions, and challenges in accessing and prescribing medicinal cannabis. This review contributes valuable insights into the current landscape of MC use in cancer care, emphasizing the need for improved communication, education, and support for both patients and healthcare providers.

The association of perceived cannabis risks and benefits with cannabis use since cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer use cannabis to help alleviate untreated cancer symptoms and side effects.

METHODS

We examined associations of perceived benefits and risks and postdiagnosis cannabis use in a weighted sample of adult cancer survivors through a 1-time survey. Fifteen perceived cannabis use benefits and 19 perceived risks were operationalized as both summary scores and report of any benefits or risks. Survey-weighted logistic regression provided covariate-adjusted odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use for each benefit-risk measure.

RESULTS

Among the weighted population of 3785 survivors (mean [SD] age = 62.2 [13.5] years), one-third used cannabis after diagnosis. Perceiving any benefits increased the odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use more than 500%, and perceiving any risks lowered the odds by 59%. Each SD increase in endorsed benefits doubled the odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use, while each SD increase in endorsed risks reduced the odds by 36%.

CONCLUSION

An accurate understanding of benefits and risks is critical for informed decision making.

Patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There has been limited study regarding patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. To address this gap, this study assesses the determinants and prevalence of patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

METHODS

Individuals who completed cancer treatment from July 2017 to December 2019 were invited to participate in a survey regarding medical cannabis. An electronic survey was administered in English and Spanish from August to November 2021 and completed by 1592 individuals (response rate = 17.6%).

RESULTS

About one-third (33.5%) of participants reported discussing medical cannabis for cancer symptom management with a health-care provider. Controlling for other factors, individuals with malnutrition and/or cachexia had higher odds (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50 to 3.53) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without malnutrition and/or cachexia. Similarly, individuals with nausea had higher odds (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.44 to 2.61) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without nausea. A smaller percentage (15.6%) of participants reported receiving a recommendation for medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. Among individuals who reported using cannabis, a little over one-third (36.1%) reported not receiving instructions from anyone on how to use cannabis or determine how much to take.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our study suggests that patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management is limited. As interest and use of medical cannabis continues to grow among cancer patients, there is a need to ensure patients have access to high quality patient-provider communication.

"Like the Wild West": Health care provider perspectives on impacts of recreational cannabis legalization on patients and providers at a tertiary psychiatric hospital in Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Legalization has increased cannabis availability in Canada. Research shows complex relationships between cannabis use and mental health, and a need for health care providers to engage with patients about cannabis use. Providers have noted gaps in knowledge and research on the medical effects of cannabis as barriers to service delivery. It is unclear how providers and patients in mental health care settings have been impacted by legalization.

METHODS

From June 1 to July 2, 2021, we conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 20 health care providers in a range of roles (e.g., physicians, pharmacists, nurses) within a psychiatric hospital setting. Participants responded to open-ended questions with follow-up probes on various topics related to cannabis legalization. Topics included impacts on patient mental and physical health, clinical impacts, education and training, legal cannabis retail system and the medical cannabis access system.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified several themes in the data. Participants reported that legalization has had some positive impacts relating to clinical care and cannabis safety. They also expressed concerns with increased rates of cannabis use, risks to mental health and ongoing challenges engaging with patients about cannabis. Participants made recommendations for medical educators and regulators (e.g., updated curriculums, clinical guidelines), the mental health care sector (e.g., implementation of standardized screening), government (e.g., public health campaigns, safe use guidelines), the medical cannabis access system (e.g., increased regulation, research), and the legal cannabis system (e.g., zoning changes, point-of-sale information).

CONCLUSIONS

This study begins to address the paucity of data on impacts of legalization from mental health service delivery settings. Findings show that although legalization has had some positive impacts, there are ongoing patient concerns and unmet provider needs. More research is needed to understand the experiences of providers delivering care to populations experiencing mental health and/or substance use concerns who use cannabis in the post-legalization era.

Potential role of cannabis in ameliorating observed racialized disparities in cancer pain management

Cancer-related pain affects a large proportion of all patients with cancer yet remains inadequately managed, particularly among patients from certain racialized backgrounds. Recently, there has been increased research and clinical interest in the use of medical cannabis for cancer pain management, including its potential to ameliorate race-based disparities in cancer pain control. Although medical cannabis is not currently a US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment option for cancer-related pain, many oncologists discuss and recommend its use with their patients, underscoring the need for researchers and clinicians to proactively identify barriers to cannabis for cancer pain management that may disproportionately affect patients from certain racial groups. In this commentary, we highlight challenges that patients from racialized backgrounds may face when incorporating cannabis into their palliative care regimens and discuss opportunities for researchers and clinicians to address these challenges should medical cannabis become a recommended treatment option for cancer pain management. In particular, we identify challenges at the structural (eg, lack of insurance coverage), clinician (eg, racialized stereotypes regarding addiction and pain), and individual (eg, internalized stigma) levels and emphasize the importance of multilevel approaches in combating these challenges as the evidence base regarding medical cannabis and its potential harms and therapeutic benefits continues to accumulate.

Pain management for post-treatment survivors of complex cancers: a qualitative study of opioids and cannabis

Aim: We aimed to understand experiences with opioids and cannabis for post-treatment cancer survivors. Patients & methods: We conducted seven focus groups among head and neck and lung cancer survivors, using standard qualitative methodology to explore themes around 1) post-treatment pain and 2) utilization, perceived benefits and perceived harms of cannabis and opioids. Results & conclusion: Survivors (N = 25) experienced addiction fears, stigma and access challenges for both products. Opioids were often perceived as critical for severe pain. Cannabis reduced pain and anxiety for many survivors, suggesting that anxiety screening, as recommended in guidelines, would improve traditional pain assessment. Opioids and cannabis present complex harms and benefits for post-treatment survivors who must balance pain management and minimizing side effects.

Medical Cannabis Prescription Practices and Quality of Life in Thai Patients: A Nationwide Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Introduction

The legalization of cannabis in Thailand has renewed interest in its traditional medical use. This study aimed to explore the prescribing patterns of traditional practitioners and assess the impact of cannabis oil on patients' quality of life, with a specific focus on comparing outcomes between cancer and non-cancer patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study across 30 sites in 21 Thai provinces to analyze the use of "Ganja Oil," a cannabis extract in 10% coconut oil, prescribed for symptoms like pain, anorexia, and insomnia across a diverse patient group, including cancer and migraines. Quality of life was assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 months. The study included a predefined subgroup analysis to compare the effects on cancer versus non-cancer patients. Data management was facilitated through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), with statistical analysis performed using Stata/MP.

Results

Among 21,284 participants, the mean age was 54.10 ± 15.32 years, with 52.49% being male. The baseline EQ-5D-5L index was 0.85 ± 0.24. Significant differences in EQ-5D-5L indices were seen between cancer patients (0.79 ± 0.32) and non-cancer patients (0.85 ± 0.23; p < 0.001). ESAS scores also differed significantly between these groups for all symptoms, except anxiety. The most frequent prescription of Ganja Oil was oral administration at bedtime (88.26%), with the predominant dosage being three drops daily, approximately 0.204 mg of tetrahydrocannabinol in total. Posttreatment, significant improvements were noted: the EQ-5D-5L index increased by 0.11 points (95% CI: 0.11, 0.11; p < 0.001) overall, 0.13 points (95% CI: 0.12, 0.14; p < 0.001) for cancer patients, and 0.11 points (95% CI: 0.10, 0.11; p < 0.001) for non-cancer patients. ESAS pain scores improved by -2.66 points (95% CI: -2.71, -2.61; p < 0.001) overall, -2.01 points (95% CI: -2.16, -1.87; p < 0.001) for cancer patients, and -2.75 points (95% CI: -2.80, -2.70; p < 0.001) for non-cancer patients, with similar significant improvements in other symptoms.

Conclusion

Our study indicates potential benefits of Ganja Oil for improving quality of life among Thai patients, as a complementary treatment. These findings must be viewed in light of the study's design limitations. Further controlled studies are essential to ascertain its efficacy and inform dosing guidelines.

Factors Affecting the Decision on Cannabis Use in Gynecologic Cancer Patients After the Legalization of Cannabis

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the patterns of cannabis use among gynecologic cancer patients, in terms of potential factors influencing their decision-making on cannabis use, the reasons for use or non-use, and sources of information on cannabis use.

METHODS

From March to July 2022, gynecologic cancer patients at a clinic were interviewed and classified into 3 groups: current users, ex-users, and never-users. The received data included: demographic data, cannabis use details, reasons for using and not using, adverse events, satisfaction, and intent to use. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors influencing decision-making.

RESULT

Among 240 participants, 11.67% were classified as current users, 28.33% as ex-users, and 60% as never-users. The significant factors influencing cannabis use decisions were advanced stage and receiving information on cannabis, regardless of the information source. The satisfaction derived from cannabis was due to the enhancement of mood and physical activity, improvement in sleep quality, stimulation of appetite, and mitigation of adverse events associated with cancer treatment. Approximately 60% of users aimed for a cancer cure. The main reasons for quitting were inability to obtain cannabis and absence of persistent cancer symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Among Thai patients with gynecologic cancer, 40% had a history of cannabis use. Advanced cancer stage was an independent factor for decision-making on cannabis use. Sources of information on cannabis are non-healthcare providers. Many patients intended to use cannabis for cancer cure. Also, many were satisfied with use because of a relief of unwanted symptoms, indirectly suggesting improvement in quality of life. The main reason for quitting was unavailability. The main reason for never trying was a concern of interference with treatment. Our results may guide the direction of strategy of cannabis use among patients with gynecologic cancers.

A cross-sectional survey of the prevalence and patterns of using cannabis as a sleep aid in Canadian cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Poor sleep is one of the most common side effects of cancer. It can persist for years beyond treatment and negatively impact quality of life and health. Cannabis is increasingly used to manage cancer treatment-related symptoms, including sleep. This study investigated the use and perceived effects of cannabis as a sleep aid in Canadian cancer survivors.

METHODS

Adult Canadian cancer survivors (N = 1464) were recruited via the Angus Reid Institute and completed an online, cross-sectional survey including the Insomnia Severity Index and questions about cannabis use for sleep. Standard descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, and ranges were produced for measured variables to assess the ways cancer survivors use cannabis for sleep. Frequencies were tabulated for categorical and ordinal variables.

RESULTS

On average, participants (Mage = 61.1 years; Women = 50%: Men = 48%) received their cancer diagnosis 12.5 years prior. Of participants, 23.5% (n = 344) currently use cannabis as a sleep aid, with reported benefits including relaxation, reduced time to fall asleep, fewer nocturnal awakenings and improved sleep quality. Two thirds (68.3%, n = 235) only began using cannabis for sleep after their cancer diagnosis. Over a third of participants (36.3%, n = 125) use cannabis as a sleep aid every day. Among the 344, the most common other reasons for using cannabis were pain (31.4%, n = 108), recreational use (24.4%, n = 84), and anxiety (12.5%, n = 43).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the prevalence and potential impact, research is needed to examine the actual efficacy of cannabis as a sleep aid.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

It is important that cancer survivors have information on methods to help their sleep to avoid impairments to quality of life and health.

A Pragmatic, Person-Centered View of Cannabis in the United States: Pursuing Care That Transcends Beliefs

BACKGROUND

Rates of cannabis use are increasing in the United States, likely as a result of changes in societal attitudes and expanding legalization. Although many patients report wanting to discuss the risks and benefits of cannabis use with their clinical providers, many providers hold conflicting beliefs regarding cannabis use and often do not engage patients in discussion about cannabis. This dilemma is underscored by the limitations imposed on cannabis related research, and lack of empirically based best-practice guidelines for clinicians when addressing cannabis use with patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to briefly summarize clinician and patient attitudes toward cannabis use and review current clinical guidelines and provide suggestions to assist health care providers and clinicians in increasing their comfort and skill in discussing cannabis use with patients.

METHODS

A narrative review on attitudes toward cannabis use and clinical guidelines was performed to summarize the literature and provide evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Attitudes toward cannabis use have been shaped by personal and political factors and contribute to clinician hesitance in speaking with patients about the topic. Administrative barriers have hindered the development of clearer public health guidelines that might enable the dissemination of evidence-based information on the health effects of cannabis use and might ultimately lead to better health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Not discussing cannabis use with patients may be a crucial missed opportunity for harm reduction. In the absence of empirically supported best-practice guidelines, a person-centered approach can facilitate conversations on the harms and benefits of cannabis use.

Cannabis use prevalence, patterns, and reasons for use among patients with cancer and survivors in a state without legal cannabis access

PURPOSE

Cannabis use among patients with cancer is common, yet data are limited regarding use patterns, reasons for use, and degree of benefit, which represents an unmet need in cancer care delivery. This need is salient in states without legal cannabis programs, where perceptions and behavior among providers and patients may be affected.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and survivors at the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina (no legal cannabis marketplace in SC) was completed as part of the NCI Cannabis Supplement. Patients (ages 18 +) were recruited using probability sampling from patient lists (N = 7749 sampled; N = 1036 completers). Weight-adjusted Chi-square tests compared demographics and cancer details among patients using cannabis since diagnosis versus those not using cannabis, while weighted descriptives are presented for cannabis use prevalence, consumption, symptom management, and legalization beliefs.

RESULTS

Weighted prevalence of cannabis use since diagnosis was 26%, while current cannabis use was 15%. The most common reasons for cannabis use after diagnosis were difficulty sleeping (50%), pain (46%), and mood changes and stress, anxiety, or depression (45%). Symptom improvement was endorsed for pain (57%), stress/anxiety/depression (64%), difficulty sleeping (64%), and loss of appetite (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with cancer and survivors at a NCI-designated cancer center within SC, a state without legal access to medical cannabis, prevalence rates, and reasons for cannabis use are consistent with emerging literature in oncology populations. These findings have implications for care delivery, and work is needed to inform recommendations for providers and patients.

Medicinal Cannabis Guidance and Resources for Health Professionals to Inform Clinical Decision Making

PURPOSE

Interest in the use of cannabis as a medicine has markedly increased during the last decade, with an unprecedented number of patients now seeking advice or prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. Unlike other medicines prescribed by physicians, many medicinal cannabis products have not undergone standard clinical trial development required by regulatory authorities. Different formulations with varying strengths and ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol are available, and this diversity of medicinal cannabis products available for a myriad of therapeutic indications adds to the complexity. Physicians face challenges and barriers in their clinical decision making with medicinal cannabis because of current evidence limitations. Research efforts to address evidence limitations are ongoing; in the interim, educational resources and clinical guidance are being developed to address the gap in clinical information and support the needs of health professionals.

METHODS

This article provides an overview of various resources that health professionals may use when seeking information about medicinal cannabis in the absence of high-quality evidence and clinical guidelines. It also identifies examples of international evidence-based resources that support clinical decision making with medicinal cannabis.

FINDINGS

Similarities and differences between international examples of guidance and guideline documents are identified and summarized.

IMPLICATIONS

Guidance can help guide physicians in the individualized choice and dose of medicinal cannabis. Before quality clinical trials and regulator-approved products with risk management programs, safety data require clinical and academic collaborative pharmacovigilance.

Drug-Drug Interactions of Cannabidiol with Standard-of-Care Chemotherapeutics

Cannabidiol (CBD) is an easily accessible and affordable Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) plant derivative with an extensive history of medical use spanning thousands of years. Interest in the therapeutic potential of CBD has increased in recent years, including its anti-tumour properties in various cancer models. In addition to the direct anticancer effects of CBD, preclinical research on numerous cannabinoids, including CBD, has highlighted their potential use in: (i) attenuating chemotherapy-induced adverse effects and (ii) enhancing the efficacy of some anticancer drugs. Therefore, CBD is gaining popularity as a supportive therapy during cancer treatment, often in combination with standard-of-care cancer chemotherapeutics. However, CBD is a biologically active substance that modulates various cellular targets, thereby possibly resulting in unpredictable outcomes, especially in combinations with other medications and therapeutic modalities. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of CBD interactions with selected anticancer chemotherapeutics, discuss the emerging mechanistic basis for the observed biological effects, and highlight both the potential benefits and risks of such combined treatments. Apart from the experimental and preclinical results, we also indicate the planned or ongoing clinical trials aiming to evaluate the impact of CBD combinations in oncology. The results of these and future trials are essential to provide better guidance for oncologists to judge the benefit-versus-risk ratio of these exciting treatment strategies. We hope that our present overview of this rapidly advancing field of biomedicine will inspire more preclinical and clinical studies to further our understanding of the underlying biology and optimize the benefits for cancer patients.

Description and Disposition of Patients With Cancer Accessing a Novel, Pharmacist-Led Cannabis Consultation Service

PURPOSE

The Cannabis Consultation Service (CCS) is an innovative pharmacist-led resource at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre. Its mandate is to provide education and guide patients through access and appropriate use of high-quality plant-derived cannabinoids (PDCs). Our objective was to describe the CCS, explain its processes, and characterize patient disposition with respect to use of PDCs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients referred to the CCS from July 13, 2020, to March 05, 2021. We used descriptive statistics to report on the patient population and service metrics.

RESULTS

During the 34-week period, 96 patients accessed the CCS (median age, 61 years). The top reasons for CCS consultation were management of cancer pain, insomnia, and general interest. Medical cannabis was supported as an option in 44/96 patients. Reasons for not supporting PDC use included lack of indication, potential drug interaction/contraindication, or requiring treatment with first-line therapy. Of the 40 patients requiring a medical document, 22 initiated therapy. The most common product used was a 2:50 THC:CBD (Tetrahydrocannabinol:Cannabidiol) cannabis oil. At the date of last contact, few patients remained on therapy because of lack of benefit, patient choice, and/or hesitancy.

CONCLUSION

Despite patients with cancer having interest in seeking PDCs for symptom management, only a few initiated and continued therapy. Pharmacists have an opportunity to advise patients and the oncology team on the risks and benefits of PDCs. These results can be used to support the development of medical cannabis programs by oncology centers and focus future research priorities.

Assessing Health Care Providers' Knowledge of Medical Cannabis

Introduction: Many health care providers would benefit from greater knowledge and awareness of medical cannabis, even if they choose not to integrate it into their medical practice. Unfortunately, health care providers generally report low knowledge of medical cannabis and cite this lack of knowledge as a barrier to making patient recommendations. It is important to understand health care providers' medical cannabis knowledge and its correlates. However, few studies have rigorously assessed clinically relevant cannabis-related knowledge, instead typically focusing on attitudes toward cannabis and perceived knowledge. Methods: Physicians in a university-affiliated health system completed an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed participants' basic demographics and medical experience, experiences with cannabis education, beliefs about their knowledge of and competency regarding medical cannabis, and knowledge of medical cannabis in relation to the current scientific evidence. Results: The average level of medical cannabis knowledge was 58% correct, with scores ranging from 39% to 78% correct. Perceived cannabis knowledge predicted actual knowledge, and those who pursued self-initiated study or attended a lecture on medical cannabis had higher knowledge levels. Conclusion: Levels of factual knowledge about medical cannabis among physicians were moderate. Our results highlight the mismatch between physician knowledge and cannabis policy. We offer our brief, 10-min assessment as a baseline for characterizing cannabis knowledge, acknowledging that the content and interpretation may change as knowledge advances.

Qualitative Research Informing a Preference Study on Selecting Cannabis for Cancer Survivor Symptom Management: Design of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

The legalization of recreational cannabis use can enable cancer survivors to manage aspects of their care with cannabinoids without medical authorization or stigmatization. However, the absence of medical guidance—from the scientific literature or the healthcare system—makes it difficult for survivors to reach informed decisions about their care.

Objective

This article outlines the qualitative research undertaken to design a discrete choice experiment (DCE) aimed at understanding Canadian cancer survivors’ preferences for managing their cancer symptoms with cannabis in this complex socio-medical context.

Methods

In this study, we drew on previously published qualitative research (a literature review and interviews with cancer survivors) and the theory of planned behavior, holding weekly team meetings to review the qualitative data and identify initial attributes associated with medicinal cannabis consumption to inform the DCE design. The initial attributes were further assessed to determine whether they were sensitive to the Canadian context, modifiable to produce levels and trade-offs, and amenable to policy intervention, in order to form the DCE choice sets. The choice sets were tested via think-aloud exercises with members of the general population and included debriefing interviews. Think-aloud participants were recruited from patient groups and previous studies.

Results

Based on our review of the interview study, we identified the following attributes associated with selecting medicinal cannabis: effectiveness; chance of side effects; support from family, friends, and/or physicians; cost; and availability. Ability to perform everyday activities was added and monthly out-of-pocket cost was refined to render the DCE realistic to cancer survivors in the Canadian context. Revisions to the DCE instructions, terminology, and cost levels were made based on results from the think-aloud exercises (n = 10).

Conclusions

This qualitative study outlines the preference evidence collected regarding Canadian cancer survivors’ decisions to manage their symptoms with cannabis to inform a DCE quantitative survey. It contributes to transparent reporting of qualitative work in DCE development and to understanding cancer survivors’ preferences regarding medicinal cannabis consumption under legalization.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00567-3.

Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about medical cannabis among nurses and midwives in Cyprus: a cross-sectional descriptive correlational study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence on healthcare professionals' attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about medical cannabis in Cyprus and across the world. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about MC use among nurses and midwives in Cyprus. Special focus was given to differences across gender, age, religion, marital status, and years of work experience.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional correlational study with internal comparisons was conducted during the 26^th Nurses and Midwives Congress in Cyprus. All active nurses and midwives (convenience sampling), from the private and national healthcare services (n = 526) were eligible to participate. To analyze the data, the Pearson Chi-square test for group differences was employed, and descriptive and inferential statistics were assessed.

RESULTS

The final sample population consisted of 232 nurses and midwives (response rate of 46.4%). In total, 67(28.9%) participants were male, and 165(71.1%) were female. Cypriot nurses and midwives reported lack of knowledge regarding the risks and benefits about MC use to patients. However, specific number of participants believed MC use was considered acceptable for the patients with persistent muscle spasms, insomnia/sleeping disorders, mental health conditions, and terminal illnesses. The vast majority of the participants believed that formal training on MC should be integrated into academic programs, and expressed the necessity of urgent training under the current curriculum, as well as, educational training programs about MC use should be integrated into the practice/clinical practice. Concerning the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, gender had a statistically significant positive effect on participants' attitudes and beliefs about MC (p < 0.01, 26.8% vs. 13.4%). Male and unmarried participants reported higher frequency about cannabis use for recreational purposes, compared with female group (p < 0.01, 22.8%Vs 11.4%). Unmarried participants agreed that using cannabis might develop serious mental health risks compared with married participants group (p < 0.05, 77.9% vs. 66.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions seem to be rather recommending in favor of MC use. Participants proposed enriching nursing curricula with theoretical and clinical/laboratory courses about MC during studies and clinical practice. Additional tailoring interventions should be established to decrease recreational cannabis use among Cypriot nurses and midwives.

Routes of administration, reasons for use, and approved indications of medical cannabis in oncology: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some patients diagnosed with cancer use medical cannabis to self-manage undesirable symptoms, including nausea and pain. To improve patient safety and oncological care quality, the routes of administration for use of medical cannabis, patients' reasons, and prescribed indications must be better understood.

METHODS

Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a scoping review was conducted to map the current evidence regarding the use of medical cannabis in oncological settings based on the experiences of patients diagnosed with cancer and their healthcare providers. A search strategy was developed with a scientific librarian which included five databases (CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO) and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest). The inclusion criteria were: 1) population: adults aged 18 and over diagnosed with cancer; 2) phenomena of interest: reasons for cannabis use and/or the prescribed indications for medical cannabis; 3) context: oncological setting. French- or English-language primary empirical studies, knowledge syntheses, and grey literature published between 2000 and 2021 were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to a thematic analysis. A narrative description approach was used to synthesize and present the findings.

RESULTS

We identified 5,283 publications, of which 163 met the eligibility criteria. Two main reasons for medical cannabis use emerged from the thematic analysis: limiting the impacts of cancer and its side effects; and staying connected to others. Our results also indicated that medical cannabis is mostly used for three approved indications: to manage refractory nausea and vomiting, to complement pain management, and to improve appetite and food intake. We highlighted 11 routes of administration for medical cannabis, with oils and oral solutions the most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should consider the multiple routes of administration for medical cannabis, such as inhalation and edibles. Our review highlights that learning opportunities would support the development of healthcare providers' knowledge and skills in assessing the needs and preferences of patients diagnosed with cancer who use medical cannabis.

Cannabidiol (CBD) in Cancer Management

Simple Summary

Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of the main constituents of the plant Cannabis sativa. Surveys suggest that medicinal cannabis is popular amongst people diagnosed with cancer. CBD is one of the key constituents of cannabis, and does not have the potentially intoxicating effects that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the other key phytocannabinoid has. Research indicates the CBD may have potential for the treatment of cancer, including the symptoms and signs associated with cancer and its treatment. Preclinical research suggests CBD may address many of the pathways involved in the pathogenesis of cancers. Preclinical and clinical research also suggests some evidence of efficacy, alone or in some cases in conjunction with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the other key phytocannabinoid in cannabis), in treating cancer-associated pain, anxiety and depression, sleep problems, nausea and vomiting, and oral mucositis that are associated with cancer and/or its treatment. Studies also suggest that CBD may enhance orthodox treatments with chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy and protect against neural and organ damage. CBD shows promise as part of an integrative approach to the management of cancer.

Abstract

The plant Cannabis sativa has been in use medicinally for several thousand years. It has over 540 metabolites thought to be responsible for its therapeutic effects. Two of the key phytocannabinoids are cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Unlike THC, CBD does not have potentially intoxicating effects. Preclinical and clinical research indicates that CBD has a wide range of therapeutic effects, and many of them are relevant to the management of cancer. In this article, we explore some of the potential mechanisms of action of CBD in cancer, and evidence of its efficacy in the integrative management of cancer including the side effects associated with its treatment, demonstrating its potential for integration with orthodox cancer care.

To Treat or Not to Treat? Polish Physicians' Opinions about the Clinical Aspects of Cannabinoids-An Online Survey

Introduction: Medical cannabis’ importance in Poland increased dramatically following its legalization as the 12th country in Europe in 2017. However, no studies have been published to give insight into Polish physicians’ opinions about medical cannabis. Objectives: To investigate physician’s opinions about cannabinoids’ utility in clinical practice, concerns regarding their safety profile, and their clinical experience with cannabinoids. Methods: The survey using a self-developed tool was conducted online; participants were physicians with or without specialist training. Participation was voluntary. Physicians were recruited through personal networks, palliative care courses, and Medical Chambers. Results: From June to October 2020, we recruited 173 physicians from 15/16 voivodeships. The largest age group (43.9%; n = 76) was 30–39 year-olds. A similar proportion declared they never used cannabis and did not receive any training regarding cannabinoids (60% for both). Only 15 (8%) ever prescribed medical cannabis, although about 50% declared knowing suitable patients for such therapy, and 53.8% had at least one patient proactively asking for such treatment in the last 6 mo. The most common indication chosen was pain: chronic cancer-related (n = 128), chronic non-cancer (n = 77), and neuropathic (n = 60). Other commonly chosen conditions were alleviation of cancer treatment side-effects (n = 56) and cachexia (n = 57). The overall safety profile of THC was assessed as similar to most commonly used medications, including opioids; NSAIDs and benzodiazepines were, however, perceived as safer. Conclusions: Polish physicians favored the legalization of medical cannabis. However, it is of concern that a limited number have any experience with prescribing cannabis. The creation of clear guidelines to advise physicians in their routine practice and education about pain management and the risks related to the consumption of recreational cannabis for medical conditions are needed.

Polish Physicians' Perspectives on Medical Cannabis Policy and Educational Needs: Results of An Online Survey

(1) Background: In November 2017, medical cannabis was legalized in Poland. Until now, there have been no studies conducted to examine the perspectives of Polish physicians about their preferences regarding medical cannabis legal status and educational needs. (2) Methods: The survey was a self-developed online questionnaire with 57 participants. Participation was voluntary. The link was shared through a personal network of medical doctors, regional medical chambers, and with doctors attending palliative care courses organized by our research group. Results: Between June and October 2020, 173 HCPs from Poland completed the survey. More than half of the study participants never received any education on medical cannabis (60.1%); 71.1% declared their knowledge was insufficient to counsel patients about medical cannabis use. The majority claimed that they would like to be able to answer patient questions (92.4%); 93.1% declared a need to create clear guidelines for using cannabinoids in clinical practice. Furthermore, 71.7% believed that medicines containing cannabinoids and 52.0% that herbal cannabis should be reimbursed (3). Conclusion: Most medical doctors do not feel prepared for patient counseling. They could benefit from targeted educational interventions. We have also identified physicians’ preferences that might inspire the stakeholders involved who are critical for shaping policies regarding cannabis-based therapeutics.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Establishing and Evaluating a Study Questionnaire on Knowledge and Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals Towards Recreational and Medical Cannabis Across Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The present survey was a preliminary to a European research project on the attitude and knowledge of healthcare professionals towards the use of medical cannabis. The objective was to evaluate the readability, understandability, and relevance of a first version of the study questionnaire before preparing the finalized questionnaire, which will be subsequently proposed to European healthcare professionals on a large scale.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2019 and May 2020. We established an electronic evaluation questionnaire relating to the study questionnaire. This evaluation questionnaire was proposed to multidisciplinary experts from all over Europe. Feedback from the evaluation questionnaire was considered for improving and finalizing the study questionnaire.

RESULTS

66 evaluation questionnaires were collected from nine European countries (Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom), which corresponded to a participation rate of 41.5%. Most participants were women (65.2%, n = 43). The mean age was 39.5 years ± 11.6. Each participant could specify several occupations. There were 25 pharmacologists, 24 physicians, ten pharmacists, four university teachers, three epidemiologists or public health experts, one nurse, one biotechnologist, one microbiologist, and one police researcher. Overall, 84.8% of participants were interested in the topic of the survey on the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards recreational and medical cannabis across Europe. Participants were satisfied with all but six of the proposed questions. In addition, two additional questions were subject for comments despite a high level of satisfaction. Consequently, the concerned questions (n = 8) were modified.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation survey was a necessary step to improve the quality of the future research project. The positive feedback encourages the authors to proceed with the project on a European scale, scheduled for 2021.

State of the science: cannabis and cannabinoids in palliative medicine-the potential

Cannabinoids are chemicals derived naturally from the cannabis plant or are synthetically manufactured. They interact directly with cannabinoid receptors or share chemical similarity with endocannabinoids (or both). Within palliative medicine, cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) may modulate some cancer symptoms: appetite, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and mood, pain and sleep disorders. Opioid and cannabinoid receptors have overlapping neuroanatomical receptor distribution, particularly at the dorsal horn, dorsal striatum and locus coeruleus. They have a favourable safety profile compared with opioids, and cannabis-based medicines help chronic pain. While cannabidiol (CBD) has anti-inflammatory properties, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive substance for issues such as mood and sleep. Nabiximols (Sativex), a CBD:THC combination, is Food and Drug Administration approved for some multiple sclerosis symptoms and epilepsy. There has been a swift societal evolution in attitudes about use of cannabis and cannabinoid medicines for chronic pain. In the USA, 33 states have now legalised prescription-based medical cannabis for several medical conditions; Canada has had legislation since 2001 authorising medical use. The European Union (EU) recently declared all EU citizens must have access to medical cannabis over the next 4 years. The integration into medicine and routine clinical use of cannabis is fraught with information gaps, regulatory issues and scarcity of research. Each patient should have a comprehensive assessment and risk-benefit discussion before any cannabis-based intervention to avoid possible complications such as hallucinations, psychosis and potential cardiac harm.

Knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing patterns of cannabis and cannabinoid-containing medicines among European healthcare workers: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the National Medical Cannabis Programme in The Netherlands, many other countries in Europe have made medical cannabis (MC) and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) available. However, each of them has implemented a unique legal framework and reimbursement strategy for these products. Therefore, it is vital to study healthcare professionals' knowledge level (HCP) and HCPs in-training regarding both medical uses and indications and understand their safety concerns and potential barriers for MC use in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive, systematic literature review was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases, as well as PsychINFO. Grey literature was also included. Due to the high diversity in the questionnaires used in the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

From 6995 studies retrieved, ten studies, all of them being quantitative survey-based studies, were included in the review. In most studies, the majority of participants were in favor of MC and CBMs use for medical reasons. Other common findings were: the necessity to provide additional training regarding medical applications of cannabinoids, lack of awareness about the legal status of and regulations regarding MC among both certified physicians, as well as prospective doctors and students of other medicals sciences (e.g., nursing, pharmacy).

CONCLUSIONS

For most European countries, we could not identify any studies evaluating HCPs' knowledge and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis. Therefore, similar investigations are highly encouraged. Available evidence demonstrates a need to provide medical training to the HCPs in Europe regarding medical applications of cannabinoids.

Experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in a cohort of New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting

PURPOSE OF STUDY

To explore the experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting.

STUDY DESIGN

An observational cross-sectional survey undertaken between November 2019 and January 2020 across four secondary-care hospital oncology departments within New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Participants were a convenience sample of doctors; consultants, registrars, medical officers of special status and house surgeons working in oncology departments. Of 53 individuals approached, 45 participated (85% Response Rate). The primary outcome was reporteddoctor-patient interactions. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of cannabis-based products, their efficacy, prescribing regulations and educational access.

RESULTS

Of 44 doctors, 37 (84%, 95% CI: 70 to 93) reported patient requests to prescribe cannabis-based products and 43 (98%, 95% CI: 88 to 100) reported patients using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. Primary request reasons were pain, nausea/vomiting and cancer treatment. 33/45 (73%, 95% CI: 58 to 85) cited knowledge of at least one cannabis-based product and 27/45 (60%, 95% CI: 44 to 74) indicated at least one condition that had evidence of efficacy. 36/44 (82%, 95% CI: 67 to 92) expressed future prescribing concerns but all were willing to use a cannabis-based product developed with traditional medical provenance.

CONCLUSION

In the oncology setting, patients are asking doctors about symptomatic and curative treatment with cannabis-based products. Doctors are not biased against the use of products showing medical provenance; however, NZ-specific clinical and regulatory guidelines are essential to support patient discussions and appropriate prescribing.

Understanding cancer survivors' reasons to medicate with cannabis: A qualitative study based on the theory of planned behavior

Background

Prior to nonmedical cannabis legalization in Canada, individuals were only able to access cannabis legally through licensed producers with medical authorization. Now with an additional legal access system designed for nonmedical purposes, it is unclear what factors influence cancer survivors’ decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis as a complementary therapy to alleviate their cancer symptoms.

Methods

We recruited cancer survivors via social media. Interested individuals were purposively sampled to ensure maximization in terms of age, sex, and province of residence. Constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior were explored during the telephone interviews as participants described what influenced their decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis to manage their symptoms.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 33 cancer survivors. All individuals believed that cannabis would manage their cancer symptoms. Those that chose to medicate with cannabis provided a variety of reasons, including that cannabis was a more natural alternative; that it reduced their overall number of prescription drugs; and that safer products had become available with the legalization of nonmedical cannabis. Some individuals also indicated that support from physicians and validation from family and friends were important in their decision to medicate with cannabis. Individuals who opted not to medicate with cannabis raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and/or possible dependency issues. Some also felt their physician's disapproval was a barrier to considering cannabis use.

Conclusions

The findings revealed that recreational legalization made using cannabis appear safer and easier to access for some cancer survivors. However, physicians’ censure of cannabis use for symptom management was a barrier for survivors considering its use.