Search

Aims: This study aimed to (1) explore the perceptions of people living with cancer about exercise in general and exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care, (2) explore their perceptions regarding exercise counselling needs and preferences, and (3) investigate how these perceptions of exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care shape survivors exercise levels postcancer diagnosis. Methods: A cross-sectional design and online survey were used to recruit cancer survivors via cancer-related networks throughout Australia. Two factor analyses were conducted to examine the structure and reduce the number of variables pertaining to exercise during and after the cancer treatment. Extracted components were used in one-way analysis of variance to compare differences in physical activity levels postcancer diagnosis. Results: Participants (N = 288) had very positive perceptions of exercise, yet only 50% of participants would prefer to receive exercise counselling. Those who were more active postcancer diagnosis had higher exercise beliefs than those who were similarly active (p = 0.04, r = 0.27) and less active (p = 0.03, r = 0.24) postdiagnosis. Those who were less active also had lower exercise knowledge than those who were similarly active (p = 0.01, r = 0.31) and more active (p = 0.03, r = 0.26). Safety beliefs did not significantly differ between cancer survivors’ activity levels (p = 0.16). Conclusion: This survey highlights the potential benefits of a concentrated effort in connecting survivors to relevant services and resources, and utilizing cancer clinicians to communicate with survivors about the role of exercise in cancer care.

Aim: Public subsidy of the oxycodone/naloxone controlled release (CR) combination in December 2011 expanded the overall market for oxycodone CR in the general public in Australia; we evaluate its impact in people with cancer. Methods: We used Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits dispensing data linked with the NSW Cancer Registry for Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) healthcare card holders 65 years and older residing in NSW between 2004 and 2013 to identify clients with cancer and their opioid dispensings. We used interrupted time series analysis to model changes in monthly rates of oxycodone CR tablets dispensed and initiations. We performed a retrospective cohort study to examine changes in client characteristics and opioid utilization over time by comparing clients initiating oxycodone CR before and after subsidy. Results: The rate of oxycodone CR tablets dispensed/month increased by 20% from December 2011, due to uptake of the oxycodone/naloxone CR combination; monthly initiations increased immediately by 17%. Initiations of buprenorphine, fentanyl, and morphine declined from December 2011. DVA healthcare card holders were significantly more likely to initiate the 5 mg oxycodone CR formulation; more likely to use immediate release oxycodone in the 90 days following initiation; and less likely to use a weak opioid in the 90 days preceding oxycodone CR initiation following December 2011 than they were prior to that time. Conclusions: The public subsidy of the oxycodone/naloxone CR formulation expanded the overall oxycodone CR market for DVA healthcare card holders with cancer. Our findings highlight the need for updated guidelines around risk management for opioid treatment in patients with cancer.

Objective To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations. Design A qualitative approach using semistructured telephone interviews. Analysis used an integrative approach. Setting Primary care. Participants Australian GPs with experience of prescribing opioids for people with cancer and pain. Results Twenty-two GPs participated, and three themes emerged. Theme 1 (Misuse is not the main problem) contextualised misuse as a relatively minor concern compared with pain control and toxicity, and highlighted underlying systemic factors, including limitations in continuity of care and doctor expertise. Theme 2 ('A different mindset' for cancer pain) captured participants' relative comfort in prescribing opioids for pain in cancer versus non-cancer contexts, and acknowledgement that compassion and greater perceived community acceptance were driving factors, in addition to scientific support for mechanisms and clinical efficacy. Participant attitudes towards prescribing for people with cancer versus non-cancer pain differed most when cancer was in the palliative phase, when they were unconcerned by misuse. Participants were equivocal about the risk-benefit ratio of long-term opioid therapy in the chronic phase of cancer, and were reluctant to prescribe for disease-free survivors. Theme 3 ('The question is always, 'how lazy have you been?') captured participants' acknowledgement that they sometimes prescribed opioids for cancer pain as a default, easier option compared with more holistic pain management. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of specific clinical considerations in distinguishing risk of opioid misuse in the cancer versus non-cancer population, rather than diagnosis per se. Further efforts are needed to ensure continuity of care where opioid prescribing is shared. Greater evidence is needed to guide opioid prescribing in disease-free survivors a