Determining Appropriateness of Total Joint Arthroplasty for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Patient-Centred Conceptual Model.

INTRODUCTION: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis is one of several treatment options with benefits and harms that patients value differently. However, the process for determining TJA appropriateness does not sufficiently acknowledge patient perspectives. The aim of this paper is to propose an evidence-informed patient-centred conceptual model for elective TJA appropriateness for hip and knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Our interprofessional team developed a conceptual model for determining the appropriateness of adults considering elective TJA. The model was informed by a review of the evidence, a qualitative study we conducted with adults who underwent TJA for osteoarthritis to determine barriers and facilitators to the use of appropriateness criteria, and the research and clinical experience of team members. RESULTS: Appropriateness is providing health services (e.g., TJA) with net benefits to the right patient at the right time. The proposed Patient-centred Elective TJA Appropriateness Conceptual Model involves three key steps. First, assess adults with osteoarthritis to determine eligibility for TJA. Second, acknowledge the patient's informed preferences including their expectations and goals. Third, explore and support their mental and physical readiness for TJA. Given that osteoarthritis is a chronic condition, these steps can be revisited over time with patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our proposed conceptual model reconceptualises the appropriateness of TJA to be more patient-centred. Hence, this approach has the potential to be a more inclusive approach and ensure patients undergoing TJA are eligible, ready to proceed, and achieve what matters most to them. Future research is needed to test and validate the model.

Decisional needs and interventions for young women considering contraceptive options: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Although women face a wide range of contraceptive options, globally, young women are at risk of unintended pregnancies. Our umbrella review aimed to determine the decisional needs of nulligravida women aged 11 to 30 considering contraceptive options and identify effective interventions to support their involvement in making decisions about contraceptive use. METHODS: We followed Joanna Briggs Institute methods for umbrella reviews, theoretically guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. We searched six electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and appraised quality using AMSTAR2. We analysed findings descriptively. RESULTS: Of 124 citations, we identified 11 reviews of variable quality (critically low to moderate quality): Six reported decisional needs and 5 reported on interventions. Decisional needs of young women were: (a) information needs about contraceptive options (e.g., mechanism of actions, eligibility, administration, side effects); (b) unclear values (concerns about hormone use) and features of different options (based on their religious values); and (c) need for support and resources (support from society and need for privacy). Compared to controls, decision support interventions including patient decision aids and patient education material increased knowledge and improved discussion of options with their clinicians. CONCLUSION: Young women making contraceptive decisions experience unmet decisional needs. Effective interventions such as patient decision aids and general patient education materials may address their decisional needs and enhance their level of participation in making contraception decisions. Implications and contribution to the field: Young women's decisional needs when considering contraceptive use are informational needs, unclear values (including religious influences), need for support and resources when facing this decision. Interventions, such as patient decision aid and patient education material can, address decisional needs by improving young women's knowledge about contraceptive options.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12-$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings.

Decision support for breast cancer screening decisions: A single case pre-/post-test study.

Canadian guidelines recommend shared decision making for women less than 50 years old who are considering breast cancer screening. Nurses can support women in making these decisions. This single case pre-/post-test study measured change in decisional conflict after decision support for a woman less than 50 years old considering whether or not to initiate mammography screening. At baseline, a 44-year-old female at average risk of breast cancer was experiencing decisional conflict. She scored 1 out of 4 on the SURE test indicating feeling uninformed, unclear values, and inadequate support. After receiving decision coaching with a breast cancer screening decision aid by a nurse trained in decision coaching, she scored 4 on the SURE test indicating no decisional conflict. She reached an informed decision consistent with her values about mammography screening. Providing decisional support improved her knowledge, reduced her decisional conflict, and enhanced her confidence in making an informed decision that was consistent with her values.

Qualitative experiences, values, and decisional needs of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism who suffer bleeding-"This pill will keep you alive tonight".

Background: Contemporary guidelines recommend extended-duration anticoagulation among patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Little is known about whether this recommendation aligns with patient values after a bleeding complication. Objectives: To explore the experiences, values, and decisional needs of patients with unprovoked VTE related to extended-duration treatment after an anticoagulant-associated bleed. Methods: In this descriptive, qualitative study, face to face online semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with unprovoked VTE who had experienced bleeding and continued anticoagulant treatment in one academic hospital in Canada. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis to identify themes. Themes were mapped onto the Ottawa Decisional Support Framework to identify decisional needs. Results: Between September and December 2021, 14 patients were interviewed (age 41-69 years; 9 females). Many patients were not aware of the option to stop anticoagulation and had limited understanding of the decision about treatment duration. Despite the negative quality-of-life impact of clinically relevant bleeding during VTE treatment, the majority continued anticoagulation due to emotional trauma of VTE diagnosis, a perception that bleeding would be more manageable than VTE recurrence, a desire to maintain a connection to subspecialty care or non-VTE related benefits (eg, cancer diagnosis, protection from COVID-19). Patients' decisional needs included lack of choice awareness, inadequate support for participation, lack of personalized risk stratification, and inadequate information on monitoring and managing heavy menstrual bleeding. Conclusion: Despite the impact of anticoagulant-associated bleeding on quality of life, patients preferred continuing with anticoagulation for reasons extending beyond secondary VTE prevention. Effective decision-support interventions are needed to address unmet decisional needs.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision. METHODS: The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict. DISCUSSION: This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

The Development and Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Individuals with Homologous Recombinant Proficient Ovarian Cancer Who Are Considering Niraparib Maintenance Therapy.

New treatments for ovarian cancer are available that require trade-offs between progression-free survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to develop a decision aid for patients with homologous recombinant proficient (HRP) tumors, as the benefit-harm ratio of niraparib needs consideration. This decision aid was created with a systematic and iterative development process based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. The decision aid was user-tested for acceptability, usability, and comprehensibility using a survey completed by a sample of patients with ovarian cancer and oncologists. This decision aid follows the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria in its development. User-test respondents (n = 13 patients; 13 physicians) reported that the decision aid used language that was easy to follow (69% patients; 85% physicians), was an appropriate length (69% patients; 62% physicians) and provided the right amount of information (54% patients; 54% physicians). Most respondents (92% patients; 62% physicians) would recommend this decision aid for HRP patients considering niraparib. This is the first decision aid for patients with HRP ovarian cancers who are considering niraparib maintenance therapy. It is available on-line and is being further evaluated in a pragmatic clinical trial in Saskatchewan.

Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as "knowledge users". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from "Screen titles/abstracts" to "Provide feedback on draft article". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. CONCLUSION: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.

When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Factors influencing Canadian oncology nurses discussing cannabis use with patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea.

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted to determine factors influencing Canadian oncology nurses discussing cannabis use with patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). A survey invitation and three reminders were sent to 678 members of the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO) between February 8 and April 10, 2022. An educator sent an extra invitation to 131 oncology nurses in Eastern Ontario. The survey was based on the Ottawa Model of Research Use. Twenty-seven opened the link to the survey and 25 responded. Of 25 nurses, 11 (47.8%) correctly answered the knowledge question about the effectiveness of cannabis for CIN. The top three barriers to discussing cannabis use were social stigma, nurses' lack of knowledge, and lack of guidance within the workplace. All participants identified needing continuing education and written guidance about use of cannabis for CIN. Although few oncology nurses responded to the survey, most indicated feeling inadequately prepared to discuss cannabis use with patients experiencing CIN.