Towards an open and effective dialogue on complementary medicine in oncology: protocol of patient participatory study 'COMMON'

Interprofessional contact with conventional healthcare providers in oncology: a survey among complementary medicine practitioners

BACKGROUND

Half of all patients with cancer use complementary medicine. Given the benefits and risks associated with complementary medicine use, contact between complementary medicine practitioners and conventional healthcare providers (oncologists, nurses) is important for monitoring the health and well-being of mutual patients with cancer. Research on occurrence of such interprofessional contact is scarce. This study aims to describe complementary medicine practitioners' experiences with contact with conventional healthcare providers about mutual patients with cancer and the importance they attach to patient disclosure of complementary medicine use to their conventional healthcare provider. Predictors for interprofessional contact are explored.

METHODS

An online survey was administered among complementary medicine practitioners who treat patients with cancer or cancer survivors and who are member of a professional association in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 1481 complementary medicine practitioners. 40% of the participants reported to have contact with conventional healthcare providers of patients with cancer. Only 13% of the complementary medicine practitioners experienced conventional healthcare providers as open to communication with them. An explorative logistic regression showed that openness of conventional healthcare providers as experienced by complementary medicine practitioners was the most important predictor for the occurrence of interprofessional contact (OR = 8.12, 95% CI 5.12-12.86, p < .001). Most complementary medicine practitioners (82%) considered it important that patients disclose complementary medicine use to their conventional healthcare provider and 49% of the participants always motivates their patients to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Interprofessional contact with conventional healthcare providers in oncology occurs but is not routine for most complementary medicine practitioners. More than one-third of the surveyed complementary medicine practitioners experienced conventional healthcare providers as not open to communication with them. The openness of conventional healthcare providers as experienced by complementary practitioners is an important predictor for interprofessional contact to take place. Most complementary practitioners acknowledge the importance of patient disclosure of complementary medicine use to their conventional healthcare provider. Open communication about the topic of complementary medicine use between complementary practitioners, conventional healthcare providers and patients prevents overlooking relevant medical information and facilitates optimal monitoring of health and safety of patients with cancer.

The Effects of Complementary Therapies on Patient-Reported Outcomes: An Overview of Recent Systematic Reviews in Oncology

Many patients with cancer make use of complementary medicine alongside conventional medicine, but clinicians in oncology often lack the knowledge to adequately advise patients on the evidence base for complementary therapies. This study aims to provide an overview of recently published systematic reviews that assess the effects of complementary therapies on patient-reported health outcomes in patients with cancer. Systematic reviews, including a meta-analysis of at least two randomized controlled trials, were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. The methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. One hundred systematic reviews were included. The results suggest that several complementary therapies can improve health outcomes reported by patients with cancer, such as acupuncture to relieve pain, music interventions to reduce anxiety and yoga to improve cancer-related fatigue. The side effects related to complementary therapy use are generally mild. The results remain inconclusive for some intervention-outcome combinations. Many of the included systematic reviews insufficiently assessed the causes and impact of bias in their interpretation of the results. This overview of systematic reviews can support clinicians in counselling their patients on this topic and provide directions for future research and clinical practice guidelines in the field of complementary medicine.

Surveying dog owners' use and understanding of, and communication with veterinarians about, complementary and alternative veterinary medicine

BACKGROUND

Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) seems to be gaining acceptance by pet owners. Client-veterinarian communication about CAVM is important to explore client perceptions and facilitate open exchange of ideas between owners and veterinarians.

METHODS

This study includes an online, cross-sectional survey of dog owners to evaluate CAVM use and client-veterinarian communication about CAVM. Based on the extended theory of planned behaviour, factors influencing the intention to use CAVM were evaluated.

RESULTS

Past CAVM use was reported by 45.3% clients based on 1000 valid surveys. The attitude towards CAVM was generally positive. Perceived knowledge about CAVM positively predicted perceived behavioural control and attitude towards CAVM. Both were the strongest predictors of future CAVM use. Around 45.7% of clients had already talked to their veterinarian about CAVM. This conversation was mainly initiated by the owner (66.3%). Owners expected the veterinarian to have knowledge about CAVM (91.5%) and offer referral (71.5%).

LIMITATIONS

The limitation is difficulty in classifying and defining CAVM modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Owners' perceived behavioural control and attitude towards CAVM predict CAVM use. Failure to engage in a conversation about CAVM hampers clients to partner with veterinarians to discuss the treatment approach and maximise patient outcome. The veterinarian plays an essential role in providing objective accurate information about CAVM.

How is complementary medicine discussed in oncology? Observing real-life communication between clinicians and patients with advanced cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the structure of communication about complementary medicine (CM) between patients with cancer and clinicians during oncology consultations.

METHODS

Previously, consultations between 29 clinicians and 80 patients with advanced cancer were recorded in six hospitals in the Netherlands. The present study considers a secondary analysis. References to CM during the consultation were coded using a self-developed observational coding scheme.

RESULTS

At least one reference to CM was observed in 35 out of 80 consultations (44 %), with a total of 73 references. In most cases, CM was initially referred to by patients. Clinicians often did not elaborate on the subject of CM. Relevant aspects related to CM (e.g., safety, effectiveness) were infrequently discussed. Both patients and clinicians showed predominantly neutral to positive attitudes towards CM.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that patients are still the main initiators of discussions about CM and the topic is not consistently discussed in daily oncology practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

If exploration of patients' interest in CM or its use became routine in oncology practice, it may relieve patients of the burden of introducing the topic, decrease potential risks of CM use and increase access to evidence-based CM for all patients with cancer.