Information and Training Needs Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Cross-sectional Study of Cancer Care Providers in Germany

Introducing a standardized assessment of patients' interest in and usage of CAM in routine cancer care: chances and risks from patients' and physicians' point of view

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, standardized assessment in clinical routine is missing. The aim of this study was to evaluate a screening questionnaire on CAM usage that was published in the S3 Guideline Complementary Medicine in the Treatment of Oncological Patients.

METHODS

We developed a survey questionnaire to assess the practicability of the guideline questionnaire and communication on CAM between health care providers (HCPs) and patients. We collected 258 guideline questionnaires and 116 survey questionnaires from ten clinics and held twelve semi-structured interviews with HCPs.

RESULTS

85% used at least one of the listed CAM methods, 54 participants (N = 77) never disclosed usage to a physician. The most frequently used CAM methods were physical activity (76.4%) and vitamin D (46.4%). 25.2% used at least one method, that was labeled risky by the guideline. 53.4% did not know of CAM's risk of interactions and side effects. Introducing the guideline questionnaire in routine cancer care increased the rate of patients talking to an HCP regarding CAM significantly from 35.5 to 87.3%. The HCPs stated positive effects as an initiation of conversation, increased safety within CAM usage and patients feeling thankful and taken seriously. However, due to the limited amount of time available for discussions on CAM, generalized distribution to all patients was not feasible.

CONCLUSION

Institutions should focus on implementing standard procedures and resources that help HCPs discuss CAM on a regular basis. HCPs should meet the patient's demands for CAM counseling and make sure they are equipped professionally.

Effects of blended learning training for oncology physicians to advise their patients about complementary and integrative therapies: results from the multicenter cluster-randomized KOKON-KTO trial

BACKGROUND

Many oncology physicians are confronted with the topic of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) by cancer patients. This study examined whether a blended learning (e-learning and a workshop) to train oncology physicians in providing advice on CIM therapies to their cancer patients, in addition to distributing an information leaflet about reputable CIM websites, had different effects on physician-reported outcomes in regard to consultations compared with only distributing the leaflet.

METHODS

In a multicenter, cluster-randomized trial, 48 oncology physicians were randomly allocated to an intervention group (CIM consultation and an information leaflet) or a control group (information leaflet only). After the training, the oncology physicians conducted 297 consultations with their cancer patients. Measurements were assessed at oncology physician, physician-patient-interaction (measured by external reviewers), and patient levels. This analysis focused on the physician outcomes of stress reaction and perceived consultation skill competency. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of oncology physicians who experienced both, the intervention and control condition.

RESULTS

The oncology physicians in the intervention group showed a lower stress reaction in all measured dimensions after CIM consultations than those in the control group. There was no significant difference between oncology physicians in the intervention and control groups regarding the perceived consultation skill competency (overburden: intervention 1.4 [95% CI: 0.7;2.1]; control 2.1 [95% CI: 1.4;2.7], tension: 1.3 [95% CI: 0.7;2.0] vs. 1.9 [95% CI: 1.3;2.5], and discomfort with consultation situations: 1.0 [95% CI: 0.4;1.7]; vs. 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2;2.3]). The qualitative data showed that only providing the leaflet seemed impersonal to oncology physicians, while the training made them feel well prepared to conduct a full conversation about CIM and provide the information leaflet.

CONCLUSIONS

In our exploratory study providing structured CIM consultations showed positive effects on the perceived stress of oncology physicians, and the training was subjectively experienced as an approach that improved physician preparation for advising cancer patients about CIM, however no effects regarding perceived consultation skill competency were found.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial registration number of the KOKON-KTO study is DRKS00012704 in the German Clinical Trials Register (Date of registration: 28.08.2017).

General practitioners' communication on complementary and integrative medicine for cancer patients: Findings from an analysis of consultations with standardised patients

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) communicate with cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) in a patient-centred and case-specific manner.

METHODS

We designed two cases of standardised breast cancer patients and allocated 29 GPs to hold a consultation either with Case 1 or Case 2. Case 1 presented with fears of possible physical side effects of hormone treatment. Case 2 feared a loss in social functioning because of nausea and emesis as possible side effects of chemotherapy. Consultations were audiotaped and analysed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). We analysed whether recommended CIM treatments and GPs' focus on psychosocial or medical and therapy-related content differed according to whether they were counselling Case 1 or Case 2.

RESULTS

In consultations with Case 1, GPs rather focused on medical and therapy-related content and most often recommended mistletoe, diets and sports. In contrast, GPs focused on psychosocial content and they most often recommended methods of self-care when counselling Case 2.

CONCLUSION

The GPs in our sample reacted case-specifically to the patients' interest in CIM. Such responsive and patient-centred communication is a valuable resource but is often time-consuming. Adequate training and reimbursement should therefore be considered for GPs.

A survey of multidisciplinary healthcare providers utilizing the KNOWintegrativeoncology.org educational platform

Background

Although the vast majority of cancer patients use natural health products (NHPs), 59% of oncology healthcare providers (HCP) report not receiving any education on NHPs. KNOWintegrativeoncology.org (KNOW) is a web-based educational platform that provides up-to-date evidence on NHPs used in cancer care with a user-friendly interface. KNOW is a database of human studies systematically gathered from MEDLINE and EMBASE. We surveyed HCPs before and after accessing KNOW to identify their information needs regarding NHPs in cancer care, their preferred way to receive information, barriers they face accessing NHP information, and to obtain feedback on the website.

Methods

Recruitment was done through Beaumont Health Systems, the Society for Integrative Oncology, and the Andrew Weil Centre for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona. HCPs who consented completed an initial survey and then a follow-up survey after being given access to KNOW for 4–6 weeks. Participants were required to access KNOW at least three times before completion of the follow-up survey.

Results

A total of 65 participants completed the initial survey, with 60% (n = 39) from the conventional medical community, 33% (n = 21) from the integrative medicine community, and 7% (n = 5) from the research community. The majority of participants (82%; n = 53) preferred educational websites to email updates, podcasts/webinars, in-house experts, PubMed searches and smartphone apps. The most common barriers identified to accessing information on NHPs were time, accessibility at point-of-care, and credibility of sources. A high number of participants were lost to follow up, with 18 participants demographically representative of the initial sample of 65 completing the follow-up survey. Half (n = 9) of participants stated accessing the KNOW website changed their clinical practice. Close to 90% (n = 16) reported they would recommend KNOW to a colleague.

Conclusion

Oncology HCPs reported preferring to use, and already relying on, numerous web-based educational platforms to gather information on NHPs, with time, accessibility, and credibility being common barriers to obtaining information. Our study findings highlight the promise of the KNOW web-based educational platform in reducing barriers to accessing up-to-date information on NHPs in busy cancer care settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-022-03601-5.

Interprofessional evidence-based counselling programme for complementary and integrative healthcare in patients with cancer: study protocol for the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ

INTRODUCTION

According to international literature, patients with cancer wish to have information on complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH). Medical guidelines recommend actively approaching patients with cancer discussing potential benefits and risks of individual CIH methods. While some CIH methods, for example, acupuncture and yoga, have been proven effective in high-quality studies, other CIH methods lack studies or bear the risk of interactions with chemotherapeutics, for example, herbal drugs. Therefore, an evidence-based interprofessional counselling programme on CIH will be implemented at four Comprehensive Cancer Centres in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A complex intervention consisting of elements on patient, provider and system levels will be developed and evaluated within a multilayer evaluation design with confirmatory evaluation on patient level. Patients with a cancer diagnosis within the last 6 months will receive three individual counselling sessions on CIH within 3 months (=intervention on patient level). The counselling will be provided by an interprofessional team of medical and nursing staff. For this purpose, an intensive online training programme, a CIH knowledge database and an interprofessional team-building process were developed and implemented (=intervention on provider level). Moreover, training events on the basics of CIH are offered in the outpatient setting (=intervention on system level). Primary outcome of the evaluation at the patient level is patient activation measured (PAM) with the PAM-13 after 3 months. Secondary outcomes, for example, quality of life, self-efficacy and clinical parameters, will be assessed at baseline, after 3 months and at 6 months follow-up. The intervention group (n=1000) will be compared with a control group (n=500, treatment as usual, no CIH counselling. The outcomes and follow-up times in the control group are the same as in the intervention group. Moreover, the use of health services will be analysed in both groups using routine data. A qualitative-quantitative process evaluation as well as a health economic evaluation will identify relevant barriers and enabling factors for later roll-out.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the appropriate Institutional Ethical Committee of the University of Tuebingen, No. 658/2019BO1. The results of these studies will be disseminated to academic audiences and in the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00021779; Pre-results.

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.

A pre-post evaluation of oncology healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices following the implementation of a complementary medicine practice guideline

PURPOSE

Complementary medicine (CM) use is prevalent among cancer patients, yet it is often not assessed by oncology healthcare providers (HCPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncology HCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding CM use before and after the implementation of a practice guideline focusing on standardizing assessment and documentation of CM.

METHODS

Oncology HCPs across a provincial cancer agency were invited to participate in the study. The implementation strategy included an initial education session for HCPs and standardized CM assessment forms. Pre-post surveys assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to CM were completed by HCPs prior to attending the education session and following the 4-month implementation period. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine differences between baseline and follow-up surveys.

RESULTS

A total of 31 oncology HCPs completed both baseline and follow-up surveys, with over 3700 patient CM assessment forms being completed during the 4-month study period. At the end of the study, HCPs reported greater CM knowledge (p < 0.001), readiness to support cancer patients' CM decisions (p = 0.002), and willingness to consult with another HCP about CM (p = 0.004). No significant change in HCPs' reported attitudes towards CM, or other clinical practices related to CM were observed.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a practice guideline, including a CM education session and a standardized assessment form, was found to improve oncology HCPs' self-reported CM knowledge and readiness to answer cancer patients' questions about CM. The findings provide support for future knowledge translation research aimed at standardizing how CM is addressed within cancer care settings.

Communication about Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Danish Oncological Settings: An Intervention Study

PURPOSE

Communication about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) between cancer patients and health professionals rarely takes place. This article reports on an intervention study that aimed to support communication about the use and effects of CAM between cancer patients and care providers.

METHODS

The intervention consisted of the use of evidence-based information material (website; leaflet) about the effects of CAM for cancer. Focus groups with cancer patients, relatives, nurses and doctors (n = 50) determined the preferred content and format of materials and evaluated the intervention. The information material was informed by a related systematic metareview of literature. A survey identified patient participants' CAM use, information sources, and the extent of communication about CAM before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

No significant impact of the intervention on communication about CAM for cancer patients, patients' CAM use or sources of information was identified. Health professionals disseminated the leaflet only in response to patients raising the topic; the website was not accessed during consultations. The intervention and information materials were well received.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients and care providers wish to improve communication about CAM. Nevertheless, patients and professionals wait for the other to broach the subject of CAM. This reflects a "culture of waiting."

KOKON: A Germany-Wide Collaborative Research Project to Identify Needs, Provide Information, Foster Communication and Support Decision-Making about Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology

BACKGROUND

The German Cancer Aid set up a priority research programme with the intention to generate high-quality information based on evidence and to make this information easily accessible for health-care professionals and advisors, researchers, patients, and the general public.

SUMMARY

The Kompetenznetz Komplementärmedizin in der Onkologie (KOKON) received 2 funding periods within this programme. During the first funding period, KOKON assessed patients' and health-care professionals' informational needs, developed a consulting manual for physicians, developed an education programme for self-help groups, set up a knowledge database, and developed a pilot information website for patients. Funding period 2 continues with work that allows cancer patients and health-care professionals to make informed decisions about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). For this aim, KOKON evaluates training programmes for physicians (oncology physicians, paediatric oncologists, and general practitioners) and for self-help groups. All training programmes integrate results from an analysis of the ethical, psychological, and medical challenges of CAM in the medical encounter, and the knowledge database is being extended with issues related to CAM for supportive and palliative care. Key Message: A Germany-wide collaborative research project to identify needs, provide information, foster communication, and support decision-making about CAM in oncology is being set up.

Information and Training Needs of Pediatric Oncologists in Complementary and Integrative Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Study

More than one third of all German pediatric patients with cancer use complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). Parents want to discuss the topic of CIM with their pediatric oncologists (POs); however, POs mostly do not feel confident discussing these topics. POs report openness to receiving further information and training, but CIM training opportunities in medical education seem rare. We investigated POs' information and training needs and preference patterns regarding CIM training content with a paper-based or online survey. A total of 101 POs from Germany completed the survey. Only 11.4% agreed to being sufficiently informed of CIM. The participants stated needing further CIM information very often (8.6%), often (38.7%), or occasionally (44.1%). They considered an overview of CIM therapies and information about relaxation methods, herbal remedies, and acupuncture for cancer-related symptoms such as lack of appetite, nausea, or vomiting as most important in CIM training material, and also the topics of adverse effects and summary of evidence. Finally, POs reported on clinical situations in which a need for further information on CIM emerged. The results of our study indicate that there is a need for a structured training that offers knowledge and skills on the subject of patient counseling on CIM in pediatric oncology.

Evaluation of a blended-learning training concept to train oncology physicians to advise their patients about complementary and integrative medicine (KOKON-KTO): study protocol for a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients are interested in complementary and integrative medicine during and after regular cancer treatment. Given the high number of users it is important that physicians and patients engage in a dialog about useful complementary and integrative medicine therapies during cancer treatment. In a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized evaluation study we will develop, implement and evaluate a training program for oncology physicians advising their patients on complementary and integrative medicine. The main objective of the study is to evaluate whether training physicians in a blended-learning approach (e-learning + skills-training workshop) in providing advice to their cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine, in addition to handing out an information leaflet about reputable websites, has different effects on the outcomes of patients, physicians, and their interaction level, compared to only giving out the information leaflet.

METHODS/DESIGN

Forty-eight oncology physicians will be included into a cluster-randomized trial to either participate or not in the blended-learning training. Physicians will then advise 10 cancer patients each, resulting in 480 patients participating in the trial. The blended learning consists of nine units of up to 45 min of e-learning and 18 units of up to 45 min of on-site skills-training workshop focusing. Outcomes will be measured on the physician, patient, and physician-patient-interaction level.

DISCUSSION

A blended-learning program for oncology physicians to advise their cancer patients in a systematic way and a reasonable time frame on complementary and integrative medicine will be evaluated in depth in a large cluster-randomized trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00012704 . Registered on 28 August 2017.

Addressing Unmet Information Needs: Results of a Clinician-Led Consultation Service About Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

Purpose. To report on a telephone consultation service with cancer patients and their relatives about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) between 1999 and 2011. Methods. We offered a Germany-wide, free-of-charge telephone consultation service about CAM led by oncology clinicians from a comprehensive cancer center. The consultations followed a patient-centered approach with the aim to provide guidance and evidence-based information. Sociodemographic, disease-related data as well as information about the consultations’ content were collected in a standardized manner, and feedback questionnaires were sent out immediately after the consultations. Results. Overall, 5269 callers from all over Germany used the service (57% patients, 43% relatives). The “big 4” cancer types (breast, gastrointestinal, prostate, and lung) accounted for 55% of all calls. In 67% of calls, patients had just received the diagnosis or commenced anticancer therapy; 69% of patients had advanced or metastatic diseases. More than half of the callers (55%) had vague concerns like “what else can I do?” rather than specific questions related to CAM. The consultations covered a broad spectrum of issues from CAM therapies to cancer treatment and measures supportive of health, nutrition, and psychosocial support. Callers highly valued the service. Conclusions. Consulting about CAM addresses important unmet needs from cancer patients and their relatives. It provides clinicians with the opportunity to engage in open and supportive dialogues about evidence-based CAM to help with symptom management, psychological support, and individual self-care. Consulting about CAM cannot be separated from consulting about conventional care and should be provided from the beginning of the cancer journey.