Clinician views on and ethics priorities for authorizing medical cannabis in the care of children and youth in Canada: a qualitative study

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20210239
Margot Gunning, A. D. Rotenberg, L. E. Kelly, Bruce Crooks, Sapna Oberoi, A. Rapoport, S. R. Rassekh, J. Illes
{"title":"Clinician views on and ethics priorities for authorizing medical cannabis in the care of children and youth in Canada: a qualitative study","authors":"Margot Gunning, A. D. Rotenberg, L. E. Kelly, Bruce Crooks, Sapna Oberoi, A. Rapoport, S. R. Rassekh, J. Illes","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20210239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of cannabis for medical purposes by pediatric patients is expanding across Canada; however, supporting evidence, federal regulations and treatment guidelines are lacking. To understand factors affecting treatment decisions in this landscape, we sought to delineate clinician perspectives, ethics priorities and values for cannabis authorization. Methods: We sampled participants purposefully through Canadian Childhood Cannabinoid Clinical Trials listservs, which include the majority of pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians practising in Canada, among many other pediatric physicians and clinicians. Inclusion criteria were being a practising clinician in Canada, involvement in the care of children and willingness to be interviewed regardless of stance on medical cannabis. In November and December 2020, we conducted semistructured interviews focusing on principles, values and priorities, including medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social considerations, for authorizing medical cannabis to children. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by means of deductive and inductive thematic methods. Results: We conducted 18 interviews with a diverse group of clinicians representing a range of specialties within pediatric care, including neurology, palliative care, oncology, family medicine and pharmacology. The interviews yielded 4 themes and 12 subthemes related to a priori (medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social themes) and emergent themes. The 4 themes of access, relationships and relational autonomy (autonomy within relationships), medically appropriate use and research priorities were grounded in principles of harm reduction. Participants described problematic authorization procedures that negatively affect patient use. Principles associated with relational autonomy were highlighted as a feature of open clinical communication. Benefits of appropriate medical uses weighed positively over risks, even in the context of potential effects on neurodevelopment. Participants expressed that more research is essential to align medical cannabis with biomedical standards. Interpretation: Clinicians reported pursuing ethical use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients and prioritizing their safety under principles of harm reduction. There is a need for evidence about neurodevelopmental risks, support for research, treatment guidelines and greater knowledge about stakeholder perspectives to alleviate burdens related to use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients in Canada.","PeriodicalId":93946,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The use of cannabis for medical purposes by pediatric patients is expanding across Canada; however, supporting evidence, federal regulations and treatment guidelines are lacking. To understand factors affecting treatment decisions in this landscape, we sought to delineate clinician perspectives, ethics priorities and values for cannabis authorization. Methods: We sampled participants purposefully through Canadian Childhood Cannabinoid Clinical Trials listservs, which include the majority of pediatric oncologists and palliative care physicians practising in Canada, among many other pediatric physicians and clinicians. Inclusion criteria were being a practising clinician in Canada, involvement in the care of children and willingness to be interviewed regardless of stance on medical cannabis. In November and December 2020, we conducted semistructured interviews focusing on principles, values and priorities, including medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social considerations, for authorizing medical cannabis to children. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by means of deductive and inductive thematic methods. Results: We conducted 18 interviews with a diverse group of clinicians representing a range of specialties within pediatric care, including neurology, palliative care, oncology, family medicine and pharmacology. The interviews yielded 4 themes and 12 subthemes related to a priori (medical, professional, regulatory, evidentiary and social themes) and emergent themes. The 4 themes of access, relationships and relational autonomy (autonomy within relationships), medically appropriate use and research priorities were grounded in principles of harm reduction. Participants described problematic authorization procedures that negatively affect patient use. Principles associated with relational autonomy were highlighted as a feature of open clinical communication. Benefits of appropriate medical uses weighed positively over risks, even in the context of potential effects on neurodevelopment. Participants expressed that more research is essential to align medical cannabis with biomedical standards. Interpretation: Clinicians reported pursuing ethical use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients and prioritizing their safety under principles of harm reduction. There is a need for evidence about neurodevelopmental risks, support for research, treatment guidelines and greater knowledge about stakeholder perspectives to alleviate burdens related to use of medical cannabis for pediatric patients in Canada.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床医生对批准加拿大儿童和青少年使用医用大麻的看法和伦理优先事项:一项定性研究
背景:儿科患者将大麻用于医疗目的的情况正在加拿大各地扩大;然而,缺乏支持性证据、联邦法规和治疗指南。为了了解在这种情况下影响治疗决策的因素,我们试图描述临床医生的观点、道德优先事项和大麻授权的价值观。方法:我们有目的地通过加拿大儿童大麻酚临床试验列表服务对参与者进行抽样,其中包括在加拿大执业的大多数儿童肿瘤学家和姑息治疗医生,以及许多其他儿童医生和临床医生。纳入标准是加拿大执业临床医生、参与儿童护理以及无论对医用大麻持何种立场都愿意接受采访。2020年11月和12月,我们进行了半结构化采访,重点关注授权儿童使用医用大麻的原则、价值观和优先事项,包括医疗、专业、监管、证据和社会考虑。访谈采用演绎和归纳的主题方法进行记录、转录和分析。结果:我们对代表儿科护理一系列专业的临床医生进行了18次访谈,包括神经病学、姑息治疗、肿瘤学、家庭医学和药理学。访谈产生了4个主题和12个子主题,涉及先验主题(医学、专业、监管、证据和社会主题)和突发主题。访问、关系和关系自主权(关系内的自主权)、医学上适当的使用和研究优先事项这4个主题以减少伤害的原则为基础。参与者描述了对患者使用产生负面影响的有问题的授权程序。与关系自主相关的原则被强调为开放临床交流的一个特点。即使在对神经发育有潜在影响的情况下,适当的医疗用途的益处也比风险更重要。与会者表示,必须进行更多的研究,使医用大麻与生物医学标准保持一致。解释:临床医生报告称,他们追求儿童患者合乎道德地使用医用大麻,并根据减少伤害的原则优先考虑其安全性。需要有关神经发育风险的证据、对研究的支持、治疗指南以及对利益相关者观点的更多了解,以减轻加拿大儿科患者使用医用大麻的相关负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to "Validity of diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canadian administrative health data: a multiprovince, population-based cohort study". Neighbourhood deprivation, distance to nearest comprehensive stroke centre and access to endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke: a population-based study. Social determinants of access to timely elective surgery in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional population level study. The success of publicly funded rotavirus vaccine programs for preventing community- and hospital-acquired rotavirus infections in Canadian pediatric hospitals: an observational study. Trends in hospital coding for people experiencing homelessness in Canada, 2015-2020: a descriptive study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1