The use of alternative therapies in the Saskatchewan stroke rehabilitation population

BACKGROUND: Many patients use alternative therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of stroke rehabilitation patients in Saskatchewan using alternative therapies, whether patients found these therapies effective in alleviating stroke-related symptoms, how often those patients who used alternative therapies discuss this fact with their primary care doctor and the main reason why patients might not do so. METHODS: Telephone questionnaire surveys were conducted with 117 patients who had suffered a stroke and undergone inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation at Saskatoon City Hospital. RESULTS: The study revealed that 26.5% of 117 stroke rehabilitation patients visited alternative practitioners at least once or used some form of unconventional therapy. Only 16.1% of patients found that alternative therapy made them feel much better. Of those who used alternative therapy, 61.3% did not discuss this fact with their primary physician. Many of the respondents (47.3%) who did not inform their physician stated that they did not see the necessity of talking about these treatments and 21.1% did not discuss the issue with their physician because they felt that he or she might disapprove of alternative therapies. CONCLUSION: A relatively small percentage of stroke patients found alternative therapies beneficial. Doctors should be aware that a significant number of patients will try alternative treatment without discussion with their primary care physician or specialist. The current study suggests that after completing routine questioning, doctors should also ask their patients about their use of alternative therapies and, when appropriate, review issues of safety and efficacy

The unique ethical challenges of conducting research in the rehabilitation medicine population

BACKGROUND: The broad topic of research ethics is one which has been relatively well-investigated and discussed. Unique ethical issues have been identified for such populations as pediatrics, where the issues of consent and assent have received much attention, and obstetrics, with concerns such as the potential for research to cause harm to the fetus. However, little has been written about ethical concerns which are relatively unique to the population of patients seen by the practitioner of rehabilitation medicine. DISCUSSION: This paper reviews unique ethical concerns in conducting research in this population, including decision-making capacity, communication, the potential for subject overuse, the timing of recruitment, hope for a cure and therapeutic misconception and the nature of the health care provider-research subject relationship. SUMMARY: Researchers in the area of rehabilitation medicine should be aware of some of the unique ethical challenges posed by this patient population and should take steps to address any potential concerns in order to optimize subject safety and ensure that studies meet current ethical guidelines and standards

Perceptions and Impact of the 2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioid Therapy and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of Canadian Physicians

Background. Physician adherence to guideline recommendations for the use of opioids to manage chronic pain is often limited. Objective. In February 2018, we administered a 28-item online survey to explore perceptions of the 2017 Canadian guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain and if physicians had altered practices in response to recommendations. Results. We invited 34,322 Canadian physicians to complete our survey, and 1,128 responded for a response rate of 3%; 687 respondents indicated they prescribed opioids for noncancer pain and answered survey questions about the guideline and their practice. Almost all were aware of the guideline, 94% had read the document, and 89% endorsed the clarity as good or excellent. The majority (86%) felt the guideline was feasible to implement, but 66% highlighted resistance by patients, and 63% the lack of access to effective nonopioid treatment as barriers. Thirty-six percent of respondents mistakenly believed the guideline recommended mandatory tapering for patients using high-dose opioid therapy (≥90 mg morphine equivalent per day), and 58% felt they would benefit from support for opioid tapering. Seventy percent of respondents had changed practices to align with guideline recommendations, with 51% engaging some high-dose patients in opioid tapering and 43% reducing the number of new opioid starts. Conclusion. There was high awareness of the 2017 Canadian opioid guideline among respondents, and preliminary evidence that recommendations have changed practice to better align with the evidence. Ongoing education is required to avoid the misunderstanding that opioid tapering is mandatory, and research to identify effective strategies to manage chronic noncancer pain is urgently needed