Search

Background: Cannabis use by physicians can be detrimental for them and their patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of cannabis use by medical doctors (MDs)/students. Method: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, PsycInfo and ScienceDirect were searched for studies reporting cannabis use in MDs/students. For each frequency of use (lifetime/past year/past month/daily), we stratified a random effect meta-analysis depending on specialties, education level, continents, and periods of time, which were further compared using meta-regressions. Results: We included 54 studies with a total of 42,936 MDs/students: 20,267 MDs, 20,063 medical students, and 1976 residents. Overall, 37% had used cannabis at least once over their lifetime, 14% over the past year, 8% over the past month and 1.1 per thousand (‰) had a daily use. Medical students had a greater cannabis use than MDs over their lifetime (38% vs. 35%, p < 0.001), the past year (24% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), and the past month (10% vs. 2%, p < 0.05), without significance for daily use (0.5% vs. 0.05%, NS). Insufficient data precluded comparisons among medical specialties. MDs/students from Asian countries seemed to have the lowest cannabis use: 16% over their lifetime, 10% in the past year, 1% in the past month, and 0.4% daily. Regarding periods of time, cannabis use seems to follow a U-shape, with a high use before 1990, followed by a decrease between 1990 and 2005, and a rebound after 2005. Younger and male MDs/students had the highest cannabis use. Conclusions: If more than a third of MDs tried cannabis at least once in their lifetime, this means its daily use is low but not uncommon (1.1‰). Medical students are the biggest cannabis users. Despite being common worldwide, cannabis use is predominant in the West, with a rebound since 2005 making salient those public health interventions during the early stage of medical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Up to 90% of breast cancer survivors report low levels of physical activity (PA) and spend approximately 70% of the day in sedentary behaviour. Survivors might not be receiving information about the health benefits of PA and the consequences of sedentary behaviour in the context of their cancer. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate cancer centres for pa and sedentary behaviour information and infrastructure. A secondary aim was to evaluate the quality of the information that is accessible to breast cancer survivors in cancer centres. Methods A built-environment scan of the 14 regional cancer centres in Ontario and an evaluation of the text materials about PA available at the cancer centres were completed. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, proportions, and inter-rater reliability. Results The infrastructure of the cancer centres provided few opportunities for dissemination of information related to PA through signs and printed notices. Televisions were present in all waiting rooms, which could provide a unique opportunity for dissemination of information about PA and sedentary behaviour. Text materials were rated as trustworthy, used some behaviour change techniques (for example, information about the consequences of lack of PA, barrier identification, and setting graded tasks), and were aesthetically pleasing. Conclusions These findings represent areas for knowledge dissemination both for the centre and for resources that could be further improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Idiopathic megacolon (IM) is a rare condition with a more or less known etiology, which involves management challenges, especially therapeutic, and both gastroenterology and surgery services. With insufficiently drawn out protocols, but with occasionally formidable complications, the condition management can be difficult for any general surgery team, either as a failure of drug therapy (in the context of a known case, initially managed by a gastroenterologist) or as a surgical emergency (in which the diagnostic surprise leads additional difficulties to the tactical decision), when the speed imposed by the severity of the case can lead to inadequate strategies, with possibly critical consequences. Method: With such a motivation, and having available experience limited by the small number of cases (described by all medical teams concerned with this pathology), the revision of the literature with the update of management landmarks from the surgical perspective of the pathology appears as justified by this article. Results: If the diagnosis of megacolon is made relatively easily by imaging the colorectal dilation (which is associated with initial and/or consecutive clinical aspects), the establishing of the diagnosis of idiopathic megacolon is based in practice almost exclusively on a principle of exclusion, and after evaluating the absence of some known causes that can lead to the occurrence of these anatomic and clinical changes, mimetically, clinically, and paraclinically, with IM (intramural aganglionosis, distal obstructions, intoxications, etc.). If the etiopathogenic theories, based on an increase in the performance of the arsenal of investigations of the disease, have registered a continuous improvement and an increase of objectivity, unfortunately, the curative surgical treatment options still revolve around the same resection techniques. Moreover, the possibility of developing a form of etiopathogenic treatment seems as remote as ever. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]