Search

Psychedelics are a class of psychoactive substances that were studied extensively between 1943 and 1970 as potential therapies for treating a host of mental health disorders, including addiction. Despite promising early results, U.S. psychedelic research was halted in the early 1970s with the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act. As the field of psychedelic-assisted therapy develops, nurses can decide the role they will play in the continuing clinical and scholarly research of these substances, which may soon be used in controlled settings to treat some of the most widespread mental health disorders. To prepare for this task, this article proposes that nurses* become familiar with the history, relevant language, and scientific findings related to the field of psychedelic research.* learn about existing psychedelic-assisted therapy and research resources.* examine their thoughts, judgments, and opinions about therapeutic psychedelic use.* consider the potential role of nursing in psychedelic-assisted therapies going forward.

Context: LGBTQIA+ people worldwide experience discrimination, violence, and stigma that lead to poor health outcomes. Policy plays a crucial role in ensuring health equity and safety for LGBTQIA+ communities. Given Lancet Commissions' substantial impact on health policy across domains, we aimed to determine how LGBTQIA+ communities and their care needs are incorporated throughout Lancet Commission reports and recommendations. Methods: Using critical discourse analysis, we analyzed 102 Commissions for inclusion of and reference to LGBTQIA+ communities using 36 key terms. Three levels of analysis were conducted: 1) micro-level (overview of terminology use); 2) meso-level (visibility and placement of LGBTQIA+ references); and 3) macro-level (outlining characterizations and framing of references with consideration of broader social discourses). Findings: 36 of 102 (35%) Commissions referenced LGBTQIA+ communities with 801 mentions in total. There were minimal (9/36) references made in the "Executive Summary," "Recommendations," and/or "Key Messages" sections of reports. LGBTQIA+ communities were most frequently discussed in reports related to HIV/AIDS and sexual and reproductive health. Few Commissions related to public health, or chronic conditions (9/60) referenced LGBTQIA+ communities. Some reports made non-specific or unexplained references; many discussed the LGBTQIA+ population without specific reference to sub-groups. LGBTQIA+ communities were often listed alongside other marginalized groups without rationale or a description of shared needs or experiences. We identified framings (legal, vulnerability, risk) and characterizations (as victims, as blameworthy, as a problem) of LGBTQIA+ communities that contribute to problematizing discourse. Conclusions: LGBTQIA+ people were rarely included in the Commissions, resulting in an inadvertent marginalization of their health needs. Policy initiatives must consider LGBTQIA+ groups from a strengths-based rather than problematizing perspective, integrating evidence-based approaches alongside community-based stakeholder engagement to mitigate inequities and promote inclusive care and policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Palliative care is unavailable and/or inaccessible for the majority of people in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This study aims to determine the availability and accessibility of palliative care services in Malaysia, a middle-income country that has made good progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). Method: Publicly available data, and databases of registered palliative care services were obtained from governmental and nongovernmental sources. Google Maps and Rome2Rio web-based applications were used to assess geographical disparities by estimating the median distance, travel time, and travel costs from every Malaysian district to the closest palliative care service. Results: Substantial variations in availability, components, and accessibility (distance, time, and cost to access care) of palliative care services were observed. In the highly developed Central Region of Peninsular Malaysia, specialty care was available within 4 km whereas in the less-developed East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, patients had to travel approximately 46 km. In the predominantly rural East Malaysia, basic palliative care services were 82 km away and, in some instances, where land connectivity was scarce, it took 2.5 h to access care via boat. The corresponding median travel costs were USD2 (RM9) and USD23 (RM114) in Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia. Conclusion: The stark urban–rural divide in the availability and accessibility of palliative care services even in a setting that has made good progress toward UHC highlights the urgent need for decentralization of palliative care in the LMICs. This may be achieved by capacity building and task shifting in primary care and community settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying and attending to the existential needs of persons with serious illness and their care partners are integral to whole-person palliative care (PC). Yet, many PC clinicians, due to individual factors and wider systemic barriers, are ill-prepared and under-resourced to navigate the existential dimension. In this article, written from clinical, research, and lived experiences, we offer tips to empower PC clinicians to understand, recognize, and respond to patients' and care partners' existential experiences by leveraging their existing skills, collaborating closely with colleagues, exploring their own existential experience, and implementing evidence-based interventions. We propose that by prioritizing existential care within PC, we can shift the culture of health care to better affirm the humanity of both patients and clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the integration of health equity into the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines, particularly focusing on the "Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer" guideline update. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive recommendations that address disparities in cancer care, which persist across various demographics despite ASCO's commitment to equitable treatment. It outlines the challenges faced by the Expert Panel during the guideline development process.

LGBTQ+ people experience higher burdens of life-limiting illnesses, poorer health outcomes, and multilevel barriers to accessing palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care. High quality evidence is needed to inform interventions to address these inequities, and inform inclusive practices and policies. Despite global initiatives to improve availability of peer-reviewed journal articles, the minority of research is open access (OA). We aimed to evaluate accessibility of literature related to LGBTQ+ inclusive palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care. A rapid review of the evidence regarding LGBTQ+ inclusive palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care was conducted; OA status of identified articles was assessed. Articles from three published systematic reviews were included (2012, 2016, and 2020). Review articles were updated using the original search and inclusion/exclusion strategies. 66 articles related to LGBTQ+ inclusive palliative, end-of-life and bereavement care were identified between 1990-2022. Of these, only 21% (n =14) were OA. Of the OA articles, 79% were published between 2017 and 2022, and 50% were published between 2020-2022, reflecting more recent shifts towards OA publishing. Health and social care professionals and policy makers rely on access to high quality evidence to inform their work. Failing to make articles related to the needs of LGBTQ+ people and populations OA risks further marginalisation and worsened inequities. Innovative journal policies and funding are needed to enable access, particularly for research that foregrounds the needs of marginalised communities. Where articles are currently behind paywalls, there is a need for accessible summaries or policy briefs to inform inclusive policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative care (PC) clinicians are well poised to help people with disabilities (PWD) live well in the context of serious illness. PC prioritizes person-centered care with a focus on function, autonomy, and quality of life. This approach aligns with principles of high-quality care for PWD. An understanding of the unique experiences and needs of PWD can advance the delivery of comprehensive, equitable PC for this population. In this article, we provide 10 tips to help PC clinicians develop an informed disability lens in their approach to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]