Managing opioids and mitigating opioid risks in patients with cancer: An environmental scan of the attitudes, confidence, and practices of ambulatory, community and hospital pharmacists practicing in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Canada is in the midst of an overdose crisis. The use of prescription opioids in Canada has increased steadily over the past two decades, with stark increases in opioid-induced respiratory depression and related deaths. Opioids are the mainstay of treatment for cancer-related pain. Patients with cancer are not immune to the risks associated with opioid use but are underrepresented in available literature outlining risk mitigation strategies. Pharmacists are ideally placed to employ opioid risk mitigation practices to support safe and effective opioid use for patients with cancer-related pain. However, the current attitudes, confidence, and safety practices of pharmacists around how to best support these patients are not known. METHODS: This study was a descriptive environmental scan of pharmacists who provide direct patient care in Canada. An electronic questionnaire was built using the web based Opinio software. It was distributed via email by several provincial and national pharmacy organizations and online platforms. The questionnaire consisted of Likert-scale and open-ended questions and was open to participants for a 6-week period from February 12th to March 23rd, 2020. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one responses from pharmacists in nine provinces were included in the analysis. Respondents endorsed limited and varied practices when caring for patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. Further, they demonstrated wide ranging confidence and attitudes regarding opioid risk mitigation practices and beliefs. Less than 50% of pharmacists were aware of resources available for their patients with non-medical opioid use, and/or patients at high risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression. Education, resources, and communication were the most commonly reported perceived facilitators and barriers to resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists in Canada report employing opioid risk mitigation practices with low and varied frequency when caring for patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. They endorsed varied confidence and limited awareness of available provider and patient resources. These findings may help inform the development of new education models and evidence-based guidelines. New education models and evidence-based guidelines will support pharmacists in their pharmaceutical care of this vulnerable patient population, ultimately aiming to improve patient outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».