Cannabis Use, Perspectives, and Experiences Among Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Descriptive Patient Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease experience high burden of symptoms, negatively affecting their quality of life. Medication therapy is often initiated to address these symptoms but is limited by variable efficacy and high pill burden. There is interest among clinicians and patients to explore cannabis and cannabinoids as an alternative treatment to manage symptoms related to kidney disease. Objective: The objectives were to characterize cannabis use among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD), to describe patient perspectives on cannabis, and to explore patient experiences with their kidney health care team related to cannabis. Design: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional paper-based patient survey. Setting/Participants: Patients receiving maintenance HD at Toronto General Hospital in the ambulatory setting between July and August 2020 were included. Methods: A 33-item questionnaire was developed to address the study questions based on existing cannabis questionnaires and input from kidney specialist physicians, pharmacists, kidney nurse practitioners, and patients. The questionnaire was distributed to patients during their in-center HD session. Patients who chose to participate in the study completed the questionnaire and returned it to the study team. Results: In total, there were 52 respondents, of which 11 (21%) reported cannabis use in the preceding 3 months, and 23 (44%) reported historical cannabis use. Baseline characteristics were similar between those who used cannabis and those who did not, with a possible trend of cannabis users being younger. The most commonly reported reasons for using cannabis were recreation and symptom management. Those who reported using cannabis for symptom management were doing so without medical authorization or documentation. Common symptoms that cannabis was used to self-treat were insomnia, anxiety, and/or non-neuropathic pain. Dried flower was the most common type of product used, and smoking was the most common route. Care gaps and opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified, related to monitoring and management of adverse effects, management of drug interactions, harm reduction strategies, informed decision-making, and prescriber education. Limitations: The overall participation rate was low, at approximately 17%, possibly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of interest, or fear of revealing cannabis use. Non-response bias is a possible limitation as this was a voluntary survey. The questionnaire was limited to multiple-choice and Likert scale questions, therefore limiting the depth of patient responses. Conclusions: Our study showed that cannabis use among patients receiving HD is common and comparable with the general population. Patients may be using cannabis to self-manage symptoms related to kidney disease, without the involvement of the health care team. Multiple opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».