Barriers and Facilitators to Integrative Oncology Services in Australia: A Changed Mind Set Required

Integrative oncology in cancer care - implementation factors: mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Integrative oncology (IO) appears to be beneficial to patients with cancer, but its implementation remains a challenge. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model, this systematic review identified the barriers to and facilitators of IO implementation in conventional cancer care settings.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases from their inception until February 2022 for qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods empirical studies reporting the implementation outcomes for IO services. Critical appraisal approach was tailored according to study types. The identified implementation barriers and facilitators were mapped onto TDF domains and the COM-B model, and subsequently onto the behavioural change wheel (BCW) for formulating behavioural change interventions.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies (11 qualitative, 6 quantitative, 9 mixed-methods and 2 Delphi studies) of satisfied methodological quality. The main implementation barriers were the lack of IO knowledge, the absence of funding and healthcare professionals' low level of IO receptiveness. The key implementation facilitators were the dissemination of evidence on IO clinical benefits, the equipping of professionals with IO service delivery skills and the provision of a supportive organisational climate.

CONCLUSION

Multifaceted implementation strategies are needed to address the determinants influencing IO service delivery. Based on our BCW-based analysis of the included studies, the key behavioural change techniques are: (1) educating healthcare professionals about the value and application of traditional and complementary medicine; (2) ensuring access to actionable clinical evidence on IO effectiveness and safety and (3) designing guidelines on communicating traditional and complementary medicine interventions with patients and caregivers for biomedically trained doctors and nurses.

Examination of Provider and Patient Knowledge, Beliefs, and Preferences in Integrative Oncology at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

Purpose

The use of integrative approaches for symptom management is highly prevalent among patients undergoing cancer treatment and among cancer survivors and is increasingly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. However, access to and implementation of integrative oncology (IO) approaches are hindered by barriers at multiple levels, including logistic, geographic, financial, organizational, and cultural barriers. The goal of this mixed-method study was to examine oncology provider and patient knowledge, beliefs, and preferences in IO to identify facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for implementation of IO modalities.

Materials and Methods

Data sources included patient surveys and provider semistructured interviews. Patients were in active treatment (n = 100) and survivors (n = 100) of heterogeneous cancer types. Patient and survivor surveys interrogated: (1) interest in types of IO approaches; and (2) preferences for delivery modality, frequency, and location. Providers (n = 18) were oncologists and nurse navigators working with diverse cancer types. Interviews queried their knowledge of and attitudes about IO, about their patients' needs for symptom management, and for recommendations for implementation of IO approaches in their clinic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to systematically analyze provider interviews.

Results

The primary interests reported among actively treated patients and survivors were massage therapy, acupuncture, and wellness/exercise. Most patients expressed interest in both group and individual sessions and in telehealth or virtual reality options. Emergent themes from provider interviews identified barriers and facilitators to implementing IO approaches in both the internal and external settings, as well as for the implementation process.

Conclusion

The emphasis on mind-body interventions as integrative rather than alternative highlights the importance of interventions as evidence-based, comprehensive, and integrated into health care. Gaining simultaneous perspectives from both patients and physicians generated insights for the implementation of IO care into complex clinical systems within a comprehensive cancer center.

Response-An Extreme Ordeal: Writing Emotion in Qualitative Research

Responding to the stimulus afforded by Little et al.'s "Pragmatic pluralism: Mutual tolerance of contested understandings between orthodox and alternative practitioners in autologous stem cell transplantation," this paper explores how the norms of qualitative inquiry affect the representation of emotion in research reports. It describes a conflict between the construction of emotion in qualitative research accounts and its application to analysis and theorization, whose origins may lie in researchers' reticence when it comes to conveying or using the emotional features of data. The technical aspects of report writing that are associated with this conflict are explored via a deconstruction of Little et al.'s paper and a survey of the qualitative research methods literature. Writing to convey emotion and analysing to include author-constructed emotional context are neglected topics. Using data in Little et al.'s text, the paper demonstrates the importance of author-constructed emotional context to theory generation. The paper recommends the inclusion of emotional context as data in analysis and points to lessons Little et al.'s paper offers in the areas of narrative technique and reflexive practice.