Perceptions of prescription opioids among marginalized patients with hematologic malignancies in the context of the opioid epidemic: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Opioids are essential for treating pain in hematologic malignancies (HM), yet are heavily stigmatized in the era of the opioid epidemic. Stigma and negative attitudes towards opioids may contribute to poorly managed cancer pain. We aimed to understand patient attitudes towards opioids for HM pain management, particularly among historically marginalized populations.

METHODS

We interviewed a convenience sample of 20 adult patients with HM during outpatient visits at an urban academic medical center. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using the framework method.

RESULTS

Among 20 participants, 12 were female and half were Black. Median age was 62 (interquartile range = 54-68). HM diagnoses included multiple myeloma (n = 10), leukemia (n = 5), lymphoma (n = 4), and myelofibrosis (n = 1). Eight themes emerged from interviews that seemed to influence HM-related pain self-management, including (1) fear of opioid-related harms, (2) opioid side effects and harms to health, (3) fatalism and stoicism, (4) perceived value of opioids for HM-related pain, (5) low perceived susceptibility to opioid-related harms and externalizing blame, (6) preferences for non-opioid pain management approaches, (7) trust in providers and opioid accessibility, and (8) external sources of pain management support and information.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study demonstrates that fears and stigmatized views of opioids can conflict with marginalized patients' needs to manage debilitating HM-related pain. Negative attitudes towards opioids were shaped by the opioid epidemic and reduced willingness to seek out or use analgesics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings help expose patient-level barriers to optimal HM pain management, revealing attitudes, and knowledge to be targeted by future pain management interventions in HM.

An Orthopedic Surgeon's Dental Examination: Reducing Unnecessary Delays in Joint Replacement Surgery for Marginalized Patients in a Safety Net Hospital System

Background

Selective dental clearance before total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been proposed; however, effective strategies of carrying out this practice are lacking. This study aims to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of a novel oral examination performed by an orthopedic surgeon to better direct limited resources for marginalized patients in a safety net hospital system.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 105 consecutive patients who had an oral examination performed by a single surgeon before elective TJA. Patients who screened negative proceeded to surgery without further formal dental clearance. Patients who screened positive underwent formal examination/intervention by a dentist before surgery. The rate of correct referral that resulted in patients undergoing an oral surgical intervention was determined. Complications during a minimum 90-day postoperative follow-up period were collected and compared.

Results

Thirty patients (28.6%) screened positive while 75 patients (71.4%) screened negative and proceeded to surgery without referral. The PPV of the screening test was high, with 73.3% of patients receiving a major surgical oral intervention before TJA. Patients sent for formal referral required 89.1 more days to receive their surgery than those that screened negative (54.9 days ± 4.24 vs 144.0 days ± 82.4, P < .001).

Conclusion

An orthopedic surgeon’s oral examination demonstrates a high PPV to identify high-risk patients in need of an oral surgical intervention before TJA. This provides a unique solution regarding over-referral for preoperative dental clearance and avoids delays for marginalized patients considering elective TJA in a safety net hospital system.

Marginalized patient identities and the patient-physician relationship in the cancer care context: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

We sought to examine and categorize the current evidence on patient-physician relationships among marginalized patient populations within the context of cancer care using a systemic scoping review approach.

METHODS

Web-based discovery services (e.g., Google Scholar) and discipline-specific databases (e.g., PubMed) were queried for articles on the patient-physician relationship among marginalized cancer patients. The marginalized populations of interest included (1) race and ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation and gender identity, (4) age, (5) disability, (6) socioeconomic status, and (7) geography (rural/urban). Study screening and data extraction were facilitated through the Covidence software platform.

RESULTS

Of the 397 screened studies, 37 met study criteria-most articles utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 28). The majority of studies focused on racial and ethnic cancer disparities (n = 27) with breast cancer (n = 20) as the most common cancer site. Trust and satisfaction with the provider were the most prevalent issues cited in the patient-physician relationship. Differences in patient-physician communication practices and quality were also frequently discussed. Overall, studies highlighted the need for increased culturally congruent care among providers.

CONCLUSION

Results from this review suggest marginalized cancer patients face significant barriers in establishing culturally and linguistically congruent patient-physician relationships. Future studies should focus on the intersectionality of multiple marginalized identities and optimization of the patient-physician relationship.