Background: Cannabis use during the perinatal period is rising. Objectives: To synthesize existing knowledge on the perspectives of pregnant people and their partners about cannabis use in pregnancy and lactation. Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Social Science Citation Index, Social Work Abstracts, ProQuest Sociology Collection up until April 1, 2020. Selection criteria: Eligible studies were those of any methodology which included the perspectives and experiences of pregnant or lactating people and their partners on cannabis use during pregnancy or lactation, with no time or geographical limit. Data collection and analysis: We employed a convergent integrative approach to the analysis of findings from all studies, using Sandelowski’s technique of “qualitizing statements” to extract and summarize relevant findings from inductive analysis. Main results: We identified 23 studies of pregnant people’s views about cannabis use in pregnancy. Comparative analysis revealed that whether cannabis was studied alone or grouped with other substances resulted in significant diversity in descriptions of participant decision-making priorities and perceptions of risks and benefits. Studies combining cannabis with other substance seldom addressed perceived benefits or reasons for using cannabis. Conclusions: The way cannabis is grouped with other substances influences the design and results of research. A comparative analysis emphasizes the importance of understanding why a pregnant person might choose to use cannabis in order to foster dialogue about perceptions of benefit and strategies for risk mitigation.

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The complexity of healthcare systems makes errors unavoidable. To strengthen the dialogue around how physicians experience and share medical errors, the objective of this study was to understand how experienced generalist physicians make meaning of and grow from their medical errors. Methods: This study used a narrative inquiry approach to conduct and analyze in-depth interviews from 26 physicians from the generalist specialties of emergency, internal, and family medicine. We gathered stories via individual interview, analyzed them for key components, and rewrote a ‘meta-story’ in a chronological sequence. We conceptualized the findings into a metaphor to draw similarities, learn from, and apply new principles from other fields of practice. Results: Through analysis we interpreted the story of an elite athlete (physician) who is required to make numerous decisions in a short period of time within the construct of a chaotic sports field (clinical environment) among spectators (the patient’s family) whilst abiding by existing rules and regulations. Through sharing stories of success and failure, the team coach (clinical mentor) helps optimize the players’ professional and psychological development. Similarly, through sharing and learning from stories, team members (colleagues) and junior team members (trainees) also contribute to the growth of the protagonist’s character and the development of the overall team (clinic/hospital) and sport (healthcare system). Conclusion: We draw parallels between the clinical setting and a generalist physician’s experiences of a medical error with the environment and practices within professional sports. Using this comparison, we discuss the potential for meaningful coaching in medical education.