Elizabeth A Fradgley, Ben Britton Britton, Jennifer H Martin, Catherine Lucas, Melissa A Carlson, Paula Bridge, Sarah Morris, Gareth Watts, James Lynam, Joseph S Taylor
{"title":"患者对药用大麻疗效、安全性和证据质量的看法:澳大利亚癌症患者的调查。","authors":"Elizabeth A Fradgley, Ben Britton Britton, Jennifer H Martin, Catherine Lucas, Melissa A Carlson, Paula Bridge, Sarah Morris, Gareth Watts, James Lynam, Joseph S Taylor","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the increased demand for medical cannabis (MC), MASCC guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety. Although research has explored medical professionals' perceptions of MC, there is to our knowledge minimal research exploring patients' perceptions, particularly in an Australian cancer setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey of Australian cancer patients attending oncology outpatient clinics was performed. Patients were ≥ 18 years and had a confirmed diagnosis of cancer (solid or hematological).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 413 patients were approached between April 2019 and March 2020 out of which 82% (350) consented to participate. A total of 19% (67/350) were using MC. Despite being used for symptom control, such as pain (61%), and, in some cases for perceived anticancer activity (12% to cure, and 16% to slow the cancer), only a minority of users believed that the evidence was of high quality for these indications (28% for physical benefits and 29% for anticancer activity). Nonusers were even more skeptical of the evidence for these indications (17% and 11%, respectively). Only a minority of patients (31% of users and 8% of nonusers) accessed information on MC from clinicians. Most instead relied on resources such as TV, friends, family, social media, and websites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates current real-world cancer patients' perceptions on the evidence for MC, the sources of information used to shape their health beliefs, and compares users to nonusers. The results highlight the need for treating teams to combat potential misinformation that patients may be accessing about MC and provide information on treatments with stronger evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients' Perceptions of the Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of the Evidence of Medicinal Cannabis: A Survey of Australian Cancer Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth A Fradgley, Ben Britton Britton, Jennifer H Martin, Catherine Lucas, Melissa A Carlson, Paula Bridge, Sarah Morris, Gareth Watts, James Lynam, Joseph S Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajco.14149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the increased demand for medical cannabis (MC), MASCC guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety. Although research has explored medical professionals' perceptions of MC, there is to our knowledge minimal research exploring patients' perceptions, particularly in an Australian cancer setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey of Australian cancer patients attending oncology outpatient clinics was performed. Patients were ≥ 18 years and had a confirmed diagnosis of cancer (solid or hematological).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 413 patients were approached between April 2019 and March 2020 out of which 82% (350) consented to participate. A total of 19% (67/350) were using MC. Despite being used for symptom control, such as pain (61%), and, in some cases for perceived anticancer activity (12% to cure, and 16% to slow the cancer), only a minority of users believed that the evidence was of high quality for these indications (28% for physical benefits and 29% for anticancer activity). Nonusers were even more skeptical of the evidence for these indications (17% and 11%, respectively). Only a minority of patients (31% of users and 8% of nonusers) accessed information on MC from clinicians. Most instead relied on resources such as TV, friends, family, social media, and websites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates current real-world cancer patients' perceptions on the evidence for MC, the sources of information used to shape their health beliefs, and compares users to nonusers. The results highlight the need for treating teams to combat potential misinformation that patients may be accessing about MC and provide information on treatments with stronger evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14149\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patients' Perceptions of the Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of the Evidence of Medicinal Cannabis: A Survey of Australian Cancer Patients.
Introduction: Despite the increased demand for medical cannabis (MC), MASCC guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety. Although research has explored medical professionals' perceptions of MC, there is to our knowledge minimal research exploring patients' perceptions, particularly in an Australian cancer setting.
Methods: A survey of Australian cancer patients attending oncology outpatient clinics was performed. Patients were ≥ 18 years and had a confirmed diagnosis of cancer (solid or hematological).
Results: A total of 413 patients were approached between April 2019 and March 2020 out of which 82% (350) consented to participate. A total of 19% (67/350) were using MC. Despite being used for symptom control, such as pain (61%), and, in some cases for perceived anticancer activity (12% to cure, and 16% to slow the cancer), only a minority of users believed that the evidence was of high quality for these indications (28% for physical benefits and 29% for anticancer activity). Nonusers were even more skeptical of the evidence for these indications (17% and 11%, respectively). Only a minority of patients (31% of users and 8% of nonusers) accessed information on MC from clinicians. Most instead relied on resources such as TV, friends, family, social media, and websites.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates current real-world cancer patients' perceptions on the evidence for MC, the sources of information used to shape their health beliefs, and compares users to nonusers. The results highlight the need for treating teams to combat potential misinformation that patients may be accessing about MC and provide information on treatments with stronger evidence.
期刊介绍:
Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.