Search

Introduction: Following 2016 legislation permitting limited access to cannabis for research and medicinal purposes, the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis (MC) on symptom burden relief in cancer contexts has increased in Australia. This study aimed to understand the perceptions, hopes and concerns of people with advanced cancer regarding the future availability and regulation of MC in Australia. Methods: This qualitative study draws on semistructured interviews conducted between February 2019 and October 2020 in Brisbane, Australia, as part of an MC RCT substudy. Interviews were undertaken on 48 patients with advanced cancer in palliative care eligible to participate in an MC trial (n = 26 participated in an RCT; n = 2 participated in a pilot study; n = 20 declined). Interviews included a discussion of patients' decision‐making regarding trial participation, concerns about MC and perceptions of future availability, including cost. Transcribed interviews were analysed inductively and abductively, informed by constructivist thematic analysis conventions. Results: Overall, participants supported making MC legally accessible as a prescription‐only medication. Fear of financial toxicity, however, compromised this pathway. Steep posttrial costs of accessing MC prompted several people to decline trial participation, and others to predict—if found effective—that many would either access MC through alternative pathways or reduce their prescribed dosage to enable affordable access. Conclusions: These findings suggest that—despite a relatively robust universal healthcare system—Australians are potentially vulnerable to and fearful of financial toxicity. Prevalent in the United States, financial toxicity occurs when disadvantaged cancer patients access necessary but expensive medications with lasting consequences: bankruptcy, ongoing anxiety and cancer worry. Interview transcripts indicate that financial fears—and the systems sustaining them—may pose a threat to RCT completion and to equitable access to legal MC. Such findings support calls for embedding qualitative substudies and community partnerships within RCTs, while also suggesting the importance of subsidisation to overcoming injustices. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory committee informed RCT design. This qualitative substudy foregrounds patients' decision‐making, perceptions and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor health outcomes amongst marginalized groups result in part from health inequities related to social and structural determinants of health. Marginalized people report higher incidences of comorbidities, chronic disease and adverse health behaviours than their nondisadvantaged peers. The objective of this review is to examine marginalized Australians' experiences of and access to community‐based primary health services in urban locations. Methods: A systematic search incorporating related MeSH terms and synonyms pertaining to marginalized Australian populations and their health‐seeking was conducted across seven databases. We included qualitative studies that reported experiences of health‐seeking within community‐based primary health care in metropolitan Australia. Participant populations experiencing marginalization due to social stigma and isolation, early‐life disadvantage, poor health and/or financial hardship were included. A meta‐ethnographic framework was used to synthesize themes across selected studies and researcher triangulation was employed to develop higher‐order themes. Results: Search results revealed 26 studies included for critical appraisal and synthesis. Seven higher‐order themes were developed describing experiences of health service engagement amongst marginalized groups: (1) Understanding the patient within the context of family and community, (2) Health and cultural beliefs influence health‐seeking, (3) Lack of information and poor cultural competence limit utilization of services, (4) Motivation for treatment influences health service engagement, (5) Accessing services, a spectrum of experience—from discrimination to validation, (6) Navigating a complex system in a complex society, (7) Preferences for health care and expectations for systemic change. Conclusion: Marginalized Australians experience health disadvantage across micro, meso and macro levels of health system navigation and commonalities in health‐seeking were identified across each of the distinct marginalized groups in our analysis. This review outlines important areas of consideration for health care provision and policy development essential to helping address health inequities for a diversity of marginalized populations. Patient or Public Contribution: Whilst patient voices were reported across all studies included within this review, no further patient or public contribution applies to this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]