Search

PURPOSE: Stigma surrounding prescription opioids, or opioid stigma, is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective and guideline-concordant cancer pain management. Patients with advanced cancer report high rates of pain and prescription opioid exposure, yet little is known about how opioid stigma may manifest in this population. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients with advanced cancer and 11 support providers between March 2020, and May 2021. We took a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to characterize how opioid stigma manifests in the lives of patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Patients and their support providers described three primary manifestations of opioid stigma: (1) direct experiences with opioid stigma and discrimination in health care settings (eg, negative, stigmatizing interactions in pharmacies or a pain clinic); (2) concerns about opioid stigma affecting patient care in the future, or anticipated stigma; and (3) opioid-restricting attitudes and behaviors that may reflect internalized stigma and fear of addiction (eg, feelings of guilt). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study advances our understanding of opioid stigma manifestations in patients with advanced cancer, as well as coping strategies that patients may use to alleviate their unease (eg, minimizing prescription opioid use, changing clinicians, and distancing from perceptions of addiction). In recognition of the costs of undermanaged cancer pain, it is important to consider innovative treatment strategies to address opioid stigma and improve pain management for patients with advanced cancer. Future research should examine opportunities to build an effective, multilevel opioid stigma intervention targeting patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer often have unrealistic expectations about prognosis and treatment. This study assessed the effect of an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on illness expectations among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial of primary palliative care conducted at 17 oncology clinics. Adult patients with advanced solid tumors for whom the oncologist would not be surprised if died within 1 year were enrolled. Monthly visits were designed to foster realistic illness expectations by eliciting patient concerns and goals for their medical care and empowering patients and families to engage in discussions with oncologists about treatment options and preferences. Baseline and 3-month questionnaires included questions about life expectancy, treatment intent, and terminal illness acknowledgment. Odds of realistic illness expectations at 3 months were adjusted for baseline responses, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and intervention dose. RESULTS: Among 457 primarily White patients, there was little difference in realistic illness expectations at 3 months between intervention and standard care groups: 12.8% v 11.4% for life expectancy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.59 to 2.22; P = .684); 24.6% v 33.3% for treatment intent (aOR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.27; P = .290); 53.6% v 44.7% for terminal illness acknowledgment (aOR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.00; P = .288). Results did not differ when accounting for variation in clinic sites or intervention dose. CONCLUSION: Illness expectations are difficult to change among patients with advanced cancer. Additional work is needed to identify approaches within oncology practices that foster realistic illness expectations to improve patient decision making.

PURPOSE: Responses to the opioid epidemic in the United States, including efforts to monitor and limit prescriptions for noncancer pain, may be affecting patients with cancer. Oncologists' views on how the opioid epidemic may be influencing treatment of cancer-related pain are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a multisite qualitative interview study with 26 oncologists from a mix of urban and rural practices in Western Pennsylvania. The interview guide asked about oncologists' views of and experiences in treating cancer-related pain in the context of the opioid epidemic. A multidisciplinary team conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: Oncologists described three main challenges: (1) patients who receive opioids for cancer-related pain feel stigmatized by clinicians, pharmacists, and society; (2) patients with cancer-related pain fear becoming addicted, which affects their willingness to accept prescription opioids; and (3) guidelines for safe and effective opioid prescribing are often misinterpreted, leading to access issues. Suggested improvements included educational materials for patients and families, efforts to better inform prescribers and the public about safe and appropriate uses of opioids for cancer-related pain, and additional support from pain and/or palliative care specialists. CONCLUSION: Challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain include opioid stigma and access barriers. Interventions that address opioid stigma and provide additional resources for clinicians navigating complex opioid prescribing guidelines may help to optimize cancer pain treatment.

PURPOSE: Providers have cited fear of taking away hope from patients as one of the principal reasons for deferring advance care planning (ACP). However, research is lacking on the relationship between ACP and hope. We sought to investigate the potential association between ACP and hope in advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a primary palliative care intervention trial. All patients had advanced solid cancers. Three domains of ACP were measured using validated questions to assess discussion with oncologists about end-of-life (EOL) planning, selection of a surrogate decision maker, and completion of an advance directive. Hope was measured using the Hearth Hope Index (HHI). Multivariable regression was performed, adjusting for variables associated with hope or ACP. RESULTS: A total of 672 patients were included in this analysis. The mean age was 69.3 ± 10.2 years; 54% were female, and 94% were White. Twenty percent of patients (132 of 661) reported having a discussion about EOL planning, 51% (342 of 668) reported completing an advance directive, and 85% (565 of 666) had chosen a surrogate. There was no difference in hope between patients who had and had not had an EOL discussion (adjusted mean difference in HHI, 0.55; P = .181 for adjusted regression), chosen a surrogate (adjusted HHI difference, 0.31; P = .512), or completed an advance directive (adjusted HHI difference, 0.11; P = .752). CONCLUSION: In this study, hope was equivalent among patients who had or had not completed 3 important domains of ACP. These findings do not support concerns that ACP is associated with decreased hope for patients with advanced cancer.