Background The number of jurisdictions allowing access to medicinal cannabis has been steadily increasing since the state of California introduced legislation in 1996. Although there is a high degree of legislative heterogeneity across jurisdictions, the involvement of a health professional is common among all. This places health professionals at the forefront of therapy, yet no systematic review of literature has offered insight into the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis. Methods Using a predetermined study protocol, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed up to the 1 st August 2018. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied uniformly. Screening for relevancy, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias were completed by two independent investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using CASP criteria (qualitative) and a modified domain-based risk assessment tool (quantitative). Results Of the 15,775 studies retrieved, 106 underwent full-text review and of these, 26 were included. The overall risk of bias was considered low across all included studies. The general impression was that health professionals supported the use of medicinal cannabis in practice; however, there was a unanimous lack of self-perceived knowledge surrounding all aspects of medicinal cannabis. Health professionals also voiced concern regarding direct patient harms and indirect societal harms. Conclusion This systematic review has offered a lens through which to view the existing literature surrounding the beliefs, knowledge, and concerns of health professionals regarding medicinal cannabis. These results are limited, however, by the implicit common-sense models of behaviour utilised by the included studies. Before strategies can be developed and implemented to change health professional behaviour, a more thorough understanding of the factors that underpin the delivery of medicinal cannabis is necessary.

No abstract

Background Extreme heat (EH) events are increasing in frequency and duration and cause more deaths in Australia than any other extreme weather event. Consequently, EH events lead to an increase in the number of patient presentations to hospitals. Methods Climatic observations for Hobart’s region and Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) emergency department admissions data were collected retrospectively for the study period of 2003–2010. A distributed lag non-linear model (DLNM) was fitted using a generalized linear model with quasi-Poisson family to obtain adjusted estimates for the relationship between temperature and the relative risk of being admitted to the RHH. Results The model demonstrated that relative to the annual mean temperature of 14°C, the relative risk of being admitted to the RHH for the years 2003–2010 was significantly higher for all temperatures above 27°C (P < 0.05 in all cases). The peak effect upon admission was noted on the same day as the EH event, however, the model suggests that a lag effect exists, increasing the likelihood of admission to the RHH for a further 14 days. Conclusions To relieve the added burden on emergency departments during these events, adaptation strategies adopted by public health organizations could include preventative health initiatives.

BackgroundGlobally, enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) is replacing mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in maintenance immunosuppressant regimens. The predominant reason for conversion is the purported improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) quality of life. This paper considers the level of bias associated with studies comparing EC-MPS and MMF for GI-related improvement and provides insight into whether conversion is supported by evidence.MethodsUsing a pre-determined protocol, a literature search was conducted. Full-text review, data extraction and risk of bias analysis was conducted by two independent authors using the Cochrane domain-based evaluation of risk of bias. The review was reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.ResultsTwenty-nine studies were included in risk of bias analysis. Of these, only three were deemed a low risk of bias. Across these three studies, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of GI-related adverse events nor was there a significant difference in the GI-related quality of life between EC-MPS- and MMF-treated patients in these data.ConclusionThere was a high risk of bias across the 29 studies investigating conversion from MMF to EC-MPS for potential improvement in GI-related quality of life. The consolidated results of the three studies with low risk of bias suggest no evidence to convert patients stabilised on MMF. If a patient experiences GI-related adverse events whilst taking MMF, other methods should be explored before conversion to EC-MPS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-018-0254-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.