Search

BackgroundThe legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis.MethodsA total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples.ResultsOverall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use.ConclusionThis geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Background: Parents of children in pediatric intensive care units have varied communication experiences with health care professionals. Little is known about factors associated with parents' perceptions of miscommunication. Objective: To examine children's clinical and parents' demographic and psychosocial factors associated with perceptions of miscommunication in the pediatric intensive care unit. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional survey of parents of children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit between January 1, 2018, and February 29, 2020, with a stay of greater than 24 hours. Results: Most of the 200 parent respondents were female (83.4%), White (71.4%), and non-Hispanic (87.9%); median age was 39 years (mean [SD], 40.2 [8.75] years); 17.6% were Black or African American. Among 210 children, mean (SD) age was 6.1 (6.02) years, mean (SD) stay was 4.5 (6.2) days, 38.6% were admitted because of respiratory illness, and the admission was the first for 51.0%. Of the parents, 16.5% reported miscommunication in the pediatric intensive care unit. In multivariable linear regressions, parents' stress (β = 0.286), parents' views of clinician communication (β = −0.400), parents' trust in physicians (β = −0.147), and length of stay (β = 0.122) accounted for 45% of the explained variance in parent-perceived miscommunication (R2 = 0.448, F = 41.19, P <.001). Conclusions: Parental stress and trust in physician scores were associated with perceived miscommunication. Further research is needed to understand the causes and consequences of miscommunication in order to support hospitalized children and their parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Prolonged management of critical illnesses in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACH) makes serious illness communication (SIC), a clinical imperative. SIC in LTACH is challenging as clinicians often lack training and patients are typically unable to participate—making caregivers central. Objectives: This qualitative descriptive study characterized caregiver engagement in SIC encounters, while considering influencing factors, following the implementation of Ariadne Labs' SIC training at a LTACH in the Northeastern United States. Methods: Clinicians' documented SIC notes (2019-2020) were analyzed using directed content analysis. Codes were grouped into four categories generated from two factors that influence SIC—evidence of prognostic understanding (yes/no) and documented preferences (yes/no)—and caregiver engagement themes identified within each category. Results: Across 125 patient cases, 251 SIC notes were analyzed. In the presence of prognostic understanding and documented preferences, caregivers acted as upholders of patients' wishes (29%). With prognostic understanding but undocumented preferences, caregivers were postponers of healthcare decision-making (34%). When lacking prognostic understanding but having documented preferences, caregivers tended to be searchers, intent on identifying continued treatment options (13%). With poor prognostic understanding and undocumented preferences, caregivers were strugglers, having difficulty with the clinicians or family unit over healthcare decision-making (21%). Conclusion: The findings suggest that two factors—prognostic understanding and documented preferences—are critical factors clinicians can leverage in tailoring SIC to meet caregivers' SIC needs in the LTACH setting. Such strategies shift attention away from SIC content alone toward factors that influence caregivers' ability to meaningfully engage in SIC to advance healthcare decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racial disparities in sleep are well‐documented. However, evidence‐based options for addressing these disparities are lacking in cancer populations. To inform future research on sleep interventions, this study aims to understand racial differences in treatment responses to acupuncture and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I) among Black and White cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a comparative effectiveness trial evaluating acupuncture versus CBT‐I for insomnia in cancer survivors. We compared insomnia severity, sleep characteristics, and co‐morbid symptoms, as well as treatment attitudes, adherence, and responses among Black and White participants. Results: Among 156 cancer survivors (28% Black), Black survivors reported poorer sleep quality, longer sleep onset latency, and higher pain at baseline, compared to White survivors (all p < 0.05). Black survivors demonstrated lower adherence to CBT‐I than White survivors (61.5% vs. 88.5%, p = 0.006), but their treatment response to CBT‐I was similar to white survivors. Black survivors had similar adherence to acupuncture as white survivors (82.3% vs. 93.4%, p = 0.16), but they had greater reduction in insomnia severity with acupuncture (−3.0 points, 95% CI −5.4 to 0.4, p = 0.02). Conclusion: This study identified racial differences in sleep characteristics, as well as treatment adherence and responses to CBT‐I and acupuncture. To address racial disparities in sleep health, future research should focus on improving CBT‐I adherence and confirming the effectiveness of acupuncture in Black cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long‐racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti‐Mexican prejudice. This commentary explores the utilization of cannabis for cancer pain relief, considering historical biases in cannabis policies and disparities in pain management among marginalized racial groups. We emphasize the need for comprehensive research that encompasses diverse patient populations and highlight the significance of inclusive approaches in combating racial disparities. There is a need to prioritize equity and inclusivity in cannabis research and access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psilocybin-assisted therapies (PAT) are reemerging as a treatment for complex distress often prompting mystical experiences, enhanced meaning, and spiritual wellbeing. We sought to investigate how measures of spirituality are employed in experimental studies of PAT conducted with seriously ill adults. Methods: We included experimental studies of psilocybin conducted with seriously ill adults, which employed measures that contained spirituality and mysticism concepts within their domains or subdomains. Included studies were peer-reviewed and published in English language (up to December 2021). Results: Seven articles met our inclusion criteria. A total of 12 unique instruments were identified. The most frequently used instruments were the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ30), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spirituality (FACIT-Sp-12), and the Demoralization Scale (DS-I/II) (used in four studies each), followed by the Persisting Effects Questionnaire (PEQ) (used in three studies). Overall, studies did not consistently define and contextualize spirituality domains and subdomains studied. Conclusions: Despite well-recognized significance of spirituality in PAT, there was considerable heterogeneity in number and types of spirituality measures employed across studies. There also seemed a lack of attention to defining and operationalizing spirituality and its domains and subdomains. This is notable as spirituality and overlapping concepts (eg mystical experiences) contributes substantially to this body of research and patients' therapeutic outcomes. Towards developing more rigorous science of spirituality in PAT research, there is a critical need to evaluate and refine measures of spirituality to enhance their utility and replicability, limit participant burden, and better contextualize spirituality-related findings and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]