Safe Prescribing Practices: Clinicians' Views on Prescribing Opioids to Patients With Early-Stage Cancer.

PURPOSE: Opioids are often necessary for patients experiencing high-intensity pain. However, side effects exist and some patients may misuse opioids. To better understand how opioids are prescribed to patients with early-stage cancer and how to enhance opioid safety, clinicians' views of opioid prescribing were explored. METHODS: This was a qualitative inquiry including any Alberta clinician prescribing opioids to patients with early-stage cancer. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse practitioners (NP), medical oncologists (MO), radiation oncologists (RO), surgeons (S), primary care physicians (PCP), and palliative care physicians (PC) between June 2021 and March 2022. Interpretive description was used to analyze the data using two coders (C.C. and T.W.). Debriefing sessions were used to resolve and discrepancies. RESULTS: Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed (NP [n = 5], MO [n = 4], RO [n = 4], S [n = 5], PCP [n = 3], and PC [n = 3]). The majority had been in practice at least 10 years. Prescribing practices were related to disciplinary perspective, goals of care, patient condition, and resource availability. Most clinicians did not see opioid misuse as a problem but were aware that specific patient risk factors are present and that long-term use can be problematic. Most clinicians undertake safe prescribing approaches tacitly (eg, screening for past opioid misuse and reviewing number of prescribers) and not all agreed they should be universally applied. Barriers (eg, procedural and time) and facilitators (eg, education) to safe prescribing approaches were identified. CONCLUSION: To enhance uptake and cross-disciplinary consistency of safe prescribing approaches, clinician education regarding opioid misuse and benefits of safe prescribing practices, and addressing procedural barriers are necessary.

Effectiveness and components of self-management interventions in adult cancer survivors: a protocol for a systematic review and planned meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions have been proposed as effective strategies to improve health and well-being and promote optimal coping in cancer survivors. Several reviews have shown benefits of self-management interventions on a variety of patient-reported outcomes. Effective self-management strategies in other chronic disease populations are typically based on theories of behavior change, but the extent of theoretical underpinnings in cancer self-management programs has not been evaluated to date. Our aim is to expand on previous reviews by evaluating the effectiveness of self-management interventions in cancer survivors as well as the theoretical components of such interventions. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of self-management interventions for adults who have completed primary treatment for their solid or hematological cancer. Interventions tested using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, with any type of comparator, will be included. A search strategy will be designed with a health sciences librarian and then performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, the National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry, and the Cochrane CENTRAL registry of controlled trials. Data synthesis will include a narrative and tabular summary of the results. Appropriate statistical analysis may include a meta-analysis using random effects methods to determine the effectiveness of self-management interventions and a meta-regression to evaluate how characteristics of the interventions are associated with the intervention effect. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies tool (RoBANS). DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will add to previous reviews and expand the existing knowledge base of the effectiveness and active components of self-management interventions for adult cancer survivors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018085300.

The application of qualitative research findings to oncology nursing practice.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) has established an ambitious research agenda and professional priorities based on a survey by LoBiondo-Wood et al. (2014). With the overall goal to "improve cancer care and the lives of individuals with cancer" (Moore & Badger, 2014, p. 93) through research activities, translating those research findings to direct clinical practice can be overwhelming. As clinicians, understanding how to critique research for quality prior to incorporating research findings into practice is important. The ultimate goal in this critique is to ensure that decisions made about patient care are based on strong evidence. However, the process for appraisal of qualitative research can be ambiguous and often contradictory as a result of the elusive aspect of quality in qualitative research methods (Seale, 1999). In addition, with more than 100 tools available to evaluate qualitative research studies (Higgins & Green, 2011), a lack of consensus exists on how to critically appraise research findings.