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。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-19 DOI:10.1111/ajco.14149
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:尽管对医用大麻(MC)的需求有所增加,但MASCC指南指出,没有足够的证据证明其有效性和安全性。虽然有研究探讨了医学专业人员对MC的看法,但据我们所知,探讨患者看法的研究很少,特别是在澳大利亚的癌症环境中。方法:对在肿瘤门诊就诊的澳大利亚癌症患者进行调查。患者年龄≥18岁,确诊为癌症(实体或血液学)。结果:在2019年4月至2020年3月期间,共接触了413名患者,其中82%(350)同意参与。总共有19%(67/350)的患者使用MC。尽管MC用于症状控制,如疼痛(61%),在某些情况下用于感知抗癌活性(12%用于治愈,16%用于减缓癌症),但只有少数用户认为这些适应症的证据质量高(28%用于身体益处,29%用于抗癌活性)。非使用者对这些适应症的证据更加怀疑(分别为17%和11%)。只有少数患者(31%的使用者和8%的非使用者)从临床医生那里获得了关于MC的信息。大多数人转而依赖电视、朋友、家人、社交媒体和网站等资源。结论:本研究展示了当前现实世界癌症患者对MC证据的看法,用于塑造其健康信念的信息来源,并比较了使用者和非使用者。研究结果强调,治疗团队需要打击患者可能获得的关于MC的潜在错误信息,并提供有更有力证据的治疗信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Management Experience of T1 Glottic Cancer Treated by CO2 Laser Surgery: A Cohort of 173 Patients. Smoking Cessation Practices in Australian Oncology Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study of Who, How, and When. Evaluating the Effect of Oral Famotidine in Preventing Hypersensitivity Reactions in Individuals Receiving Platinum-Based Agents or Taxanes. A Comparison of Australian Oncology Clinicians' Smoking Cessation Care Practices for People Who Currently Smoke Versus Those Who Report Recently Stopping Smoking. Efficacy and Safety of Four Weeks of Moderately Hypofractionated Chemoradiation for Unresectable, Stage 3 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.
×
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