A Qualitative Analysis of Cancer Patients' Perceptions of an Interprofessional Counseling Service on Complementary and Integrative Healthcare

Medical guidelines recommend actively addressing patients' information needs regarding complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH). Within the CCC-Integrativ study, an interprofessional counseling program on CIH was developed and implemented at four comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) in Germany. As part of the process evaluation, this study examines cancer patients' experiences with interprofessional CIH counseling sessions conducted by a physician and a nurse. Forty problem-centered interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using deductive-inductive content analysis based on Kuckartz and Rädiker's approach. Findings revealed that most participants had prior experience with CIH approaches and were burdened by physiological and psychological symptoms. Counseling sessions focused on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms and appropriate CIH recommendations (e.g., herbal poultice against anxieties and acupressure against nausea). Participants appreciated the mutual exchange and integration of perspectives from different healthcare professions within the interprofessional approach. They noted that the counseling team comprehensively addressed their healthcare and CIH information needs. Suggestions for improvement included the specificity of the CIH recommendations. As the participants only received counseling and no CIH treatments, information about reputable CIH providers was particularly important to many seeking advice. Patients with cancer receiving tailored CIH counseling from two healthcare professionals experienced benefits in CIH counseling for symptom management. The interprofessional teams offered a comprehensive perspective on patients' needs, proposing personalized recommendations for symptom control. These insights may foster collaboration between healthcare professionals interested in CIH counseling, enabling them to expand and consolidate their counseling services.

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine

PURPOSE

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM.

METHODS

A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

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).

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of an e-Learning in Integrative Oncology for Physicians and Students Involving Experts and Learners: Experiences and Recommendations

In this project, an e-Learning program for complementary and integrative medicine in oncology was systematically developed, implemented, and evaluated in a stepwise procedure. Learning objectives and content were defined within the KOKON project network, considering the educational competencies for integrative oncology. To design a valuable e-Learning, experts were involved in all relevant steps of the process, as well as stakeholders from various target groups (undergraduates: medicine students, postgraduates: oncology physicians). We used mixed methods including quantitative surveys, progress tests, and qualitative focus groups. The developed e-Learning program led to a significant measurable knowledge gain about complementary and integrative medicine. In parallel, physicians and students were subjectively satisfied with the training. For the majority of e-Learning elements, the needs of both target groups are comparable. Furthermore, both groups emphasized the value of formative assessment tools for gaining knowledge. From the various surveys and experiences collected in this project, we derive recommendations for others developing e-Learning programs.

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.

Communication Between Cancer Patients and Physicians About Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become increasingly popular among cancer patients and is often used concomitantly with standard cancer therapies. Nonetheless, disclosure of CAM utilization by cancer patients to physicians, along with the provision of information on CAM therapies by physicians, is poor. This review explores the literature to synthesize existing information on communication about CAM usage, reasons for nondisclosure, and the clinical implications thereof. Methods: A search of medical literature published between December 1, 2009, and October 1, 2021 (last searched on April 18, 2022), on communications between physicians and cancer patients about CAM treatments was conducted through MEDLINE and EMBASE. Results were screened for inclusion, dually reviewed, and assessed using the QualSyst quality appraisal instrument. Findings were categorized and synthesized for review. Results: A total of 30 articles were located (n = 8721 total participants), which discussed elements related to patient disclosure of CAM use (n = 16), provider experiences or perceptions related to communication about CAM (n = 3), patterns of this communication (n = 6), and recommendations for effectively discussing CAM with cancer patients (n = 5). Reports indicate that nondisclosure is common throughout the cancer care spectrum. Factors influencing nondisclosure range from patient beliefs and attitudes about their provider, demographic characteristics, disease progression, physician-patient relationship, physician noninquiry, and type of CAM used; ultimately creating a gap in care that may have serious medical implications. Discussion: Many of the studies identified are small and confined to a single-center, hospital-network, or geographic setting, thereby limiting the applicability of findings and recommendations. Nonetheless, improving patient-physician communication is essential in delivering evidence-informed, patient-centered care and crucial for achieving patient satisfaction and positive health outcomes. The lack of adequate CAM dialogue about CAM use increases the risk of adverse interactions with conventional cancer treatments and results in missed opportunities for providers and patients to engage in vital information exchange. Future research and education are necessary to further identify barriers surrounding patient-provider communication about CAM treatments.

Development and Implementation of Situational Judgment Tests as an Evaluation Method for Training Oncology Physicians: Application in the KOKON-KTO Training

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are often used in aptitude testing and present practice-specific challenges. Their implementation into online training programs provides the opportunity to assess learning progress and improve training quality. In this study, text-based SJTs for oncology physicians were developed, validated, and implemented into the KOKON-KTO training which uses a blended learning training format to teach oncology physicians how to consult cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). The SJT was implemented to measure the e-learning results. In the development and validation phase, a total of 15 SJTs (each SJT including 1 best choice answer based on training content and 4 distractors; 9 SJTs for oncologists and 6 SJTs for oncology gynecologists only) were developed by an interprofessional team (n=5) using real-case vignettes and applying an in-depth review process. Best answers were validated by experts (oncologists and oncology gynecologists) with experience in advising cancer patients on CIM. In the implementation and evaluation phase, SJTs were answered by KOKON-KTO training participants (n=19) pre- and post e-learning. Results were analyzed using descriptive measurements, item difficulties, and Cohen's d for effect size pre- and post-training. The experts (n=12, 49.8% gynecologists) agreed with best choice answers (69.4% for oncology gynecology; 81.5% for oncology) in 12 out of 15 SJTs. Comparing pre- and post-training scores, KOKON-KTO training participants were able to improve knowledge substantially (effect sizes for oncologists d=1.7; oncology gynecologists d= .71). Future studies need to increase the number of experts and SJTs in order to apply further psychometric measurements. As part of the KOKON-KTO study, this project is registered as DRKS00012704 on the "German Clinical Trials Register" (Date of registration: 28.08.2017).

Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Head and Neck Cancer

Complementary/integrative medicine (CIM) is an evolving area of collaboration between oncology, patient and their beliefs, and practitioners of complementary medicine. Evidence-informed decision-making is necessary to advise patients on which treatments may be incorporated into standard of care treatments for cancer. Patients use CIM for a variety of reasons and often have unrealistic expectations of cure or disease modifications; on the other hand, there is increasing evidence that symptoms, side effects, and dysfunction related to cancer and its treatment can be ameliorated by CIM approaches to improve patient satisfaction and quality of life. Open communication between patients and providers is paramount.

Naturopathy, complementary and integrative medicine in medical education - position paper by the GMA Committee Integrative Medicine and Perspective Pluralism

Background

A large part of the population in Germany makes use of naturopathic, complementary and integrative medical treatments. There are now numerous scientific studies that provide evidence of efficacy for certain indications. At German medical faculties, selected procedures and their application are taught within the cross-sectoral unit called QB 12 and some elective courses, with a focus on specific aspects are offered. So far, however, there has been no structured curriculum that longitudinally anchors teaching across medical studies and enables all students to consider naturopathic and complementary medical options for patient care later on and to integrate them effectively into the diagnostic and treatment process.

Objective

The aim of this position paper is to show the relevance of this topic for medical education, to clarify terminology and to present core competencies and possible implementation options for training.

Method

The Integrative Medicine and Perspective Pluralism Committee of the German Association for Medical Education developed this position paper in a multi-stage consensual process, in cooperation with the Forum of University Work Groups on Naturopathic Treatment and Complementary Medicine.

Results

First, different umbrella terms were discussed and an existing definition of integrative medicine and health was chosen for subsequent use. Building on this step, the status of education and its scientific foundation in Germany was considered in an international context. In the next step, a competency profile for medical training, consisting of seven areas of competency, was developed and described in detail with regard to naturopathic, complementary and integrative medicine. Implementation options were identified using possible starting points in the curriculum and using established examples of best practice.

Conclusion

Despite different priorities at each faculty, it was possible to find an agreement on the development of competencies and anchoring them in medical education on the basis of a common definition of terms. Currently, the implementation in the mandatory and elective areas is very heterogeneous. As part of the current revision of the Medical Licensure Act, there are many possible starting points for the integration of naturopathic and complementary medical teaching content, especially in interprofessional and general practice courses. The implementation and accompanying research of targeted teaching settings should lay the foundations for a long-term and binding integration into medical education. Overall, it is clear that medical education in the field of naturopathy and complementary and integrative medicine has the potential to develop comprehensive core medical competencies.

"Part of the Conversation": A Qualitative Study of Oncology Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Integrating Standardized Assessment and Documentation of Complementary Medicine

Introduction:

The use of complementary medicine (CM) among individuals with cancer is common, however, it is infrequently assessed or documented by oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs). A study implementing standardized assessment and documentation of CM was conducted at a provincial cancer agency. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives and experience of oncology HCPs who took part in the study, as well as withdrew, regarding the feasibility and the challenges associated with assessment and documentation of CM use.

Methods:

An interpretive descriptive study methodology was used. A total of 20 HCPs who participated, managed staff, or withdrew from the study were interviewed. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic, inductive analysis was used to code and analyse themes from the data.

Results:

Oncology HCPs who participated in the study felt that CM use was common among patients and recognized it went underreported and was poorly documented. Facilitating factors for the implementation of standardized assessment and documentation of CM use included having a standard assessment form, embedding assessment within existing screening processes, and leveraging self-report by patients. Barriers included limited time, perceived lack of knowledge regarding CM, hesitancy to engage patients in discussion about CM, and lack of institutional support and resources. Recommendations for future implementation included having explicit policies related to addressing CM at point-of-care, leveraging existing electronic patient reporting systems, including the electronic health record, and developing information resources and training for HCPs.

Conclusions:

With the high prevalence of CM use among individuals with cancer, oncology HCPs perceive addressing CM use to be feasible and an essential part of high-quality, person-centered cancer care. Institutional and professional challenges, however, must be overcome to support the assessment, documentation and discussion of CM in patient-HCP consultations.

The role of the general practitioner in cancer care in general and with respect to complementary and alternative medicine for patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Cancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The aim of this study was to assess the expectations of cancer patients towards their general practitioner (GP) regarding information on and offers of CAM procedures.

METHODS

A standardised anonymous questionnaire was developed and handed out to cancer patients in GP practices and oncology clinics in Germany.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty questionnaires were evaluable. For 88.1% of the patients, it was important that their GP regularly receives information on cancer therapy. Only a minority consulted with the GP regarding diagnosis and therapy of the cancer (32.4%) or approached him about side effects of the therapy (46.9%). About one fifth of the GPs offered CAM. Before the cancer diagnosis, only 7% of the patients received a CAM offer from the GP; after the diagnosis, it was 14%. A large majority wanted the GP to offer more complementary (70.9%) and alternative (54.3%) medicine.

CONCLUSION

Our survey points to a clear mismatch of supply and demand regarding CAM for cancer patients in the primary care sector. Training for GPs on scientific evidence of as well as communication skills on CAM will be indispensable in the future to optimise the care of cancer patients by GPs.

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

INTRODUCTION

Approximately half of patients with cancer use some form of complementary medicine alongside conventional cancer treatment. The topic of complementary medicine often remains undiscussed in consultations between patients with cancer and their healthcare providers. This results in increased risks for adverse or interaction effects and decreased access to the benefits of evidence-based complementary medicine for patients with cancer. This paper describes the design of patient participatory study titled 'COMMON' that aims to explore and enhance open and effective communication about complementary medicine in oncology. The study is carried out in collaboration with 12 (former) patients with breast cancer as coresearchers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study complies with the six steps of the intervention mapping framework. Three non-academic hospitals recruit participants (patients with cancer, oncology healthcare providers and managers) for interviews about the organisation, experiences and needs regarding complementary medicine. To assess communication about complementary medicine, recorded oncology consultations are analysed. For an overview of evidence-based complementary medicine available to patients with cancer, a review of reviews is conducted on the evidence on cancer patient-reported outcomes of complementary medicine frequently used by patients with cancer, supplemented with an online search and survey among organisations and persons providing complementary medicine to patients with cancer. Together, these steps generate input for the development of a toolbox that supports an open and effective discussion on complementary medicine in oncology. In a pilot study, acceptability and usability of the toolbox are assessed among patients with cancer and oncology healthcare providers. Dissemination of the toolbox is covered by the commitment of stakeholder parties.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen declared the study was exempted from formal approval under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The results will be disseminated through open-access, peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder-reporting and presentations at relevant conferences.

Counseling on Complementary Methods in the Treatment of Side Effects of Oncological Therapies: A Project of the Breast and Bowel Center Nahe at the Hospital Sankt Marienwoerth Bad Kreuznach

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, patients with cancer are asking for additional, complementary therapy options for treating the side effects of oncological therapy. Thus, the members of the Breast and Bowel Center Nahe at the Sankt Marienwörth Hospital Bad Kreuznach decided to define the content of this type of counseling for patients before treatment.

METHODS

In 2018, a team of internal oncologists, gynecological oncologists, radio-oncologists, nutritionists, psycho-oncologists, and study nurses met several times to define the content of counseling. To inform the team, an intensive literature review was conducted.

RESULTS

Counseling content was determined for complementary treatment options for the most frequent side effects of oncological therapies. Counseling sessions were formulated as frontal lectures (slide presentations), given at regular intervals for patients and relatives. These lectures were highly appreciated by patients.

CONCLUSION

These counseling sessions increased patient understanding of both useful complementary measures and harmful measures they should not use.

Effects of training oncology physicians advising patients on complementary and integrative therapies on patient-reported outcomes: A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer do not disclose complementary medicine use but want their physician's advice on this matter. This study evaluated whether using blended learning (e-learning plus a workshop) to train oncology physicians in providing advice on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) therapies to their patients with cancer, in addition to distributing an information leaflet on reputable CIM websites, had different effects on patient-reported outcomes for the consultation than only distributing the leaflet.

METHODS

In this multicenter, cluster-randomized trial, patients from private practices/hospital departments, recruited by 48 oncology physicians randomly allocated to an intervention group (CIM consultation plus information leaflet) or a control group (information leaflet), received CIM information. Patient-reported outcomes included satisfaction (Patient Satisfaction With Information on Cancer Treatment), readiness to make a decision (Preparation for Decision Making), and physician-patient communication (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Communication 26 [EORTC QLQ-COMU26]) for the consultation. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a physician subsample.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients (128 in the intervention group and 169 in the control group) advised by 41 physicians participated. Patients in the intervention group rated physician-patient communication higher on all EORTC QLQ-COMU26 scales (mean total score, 84.3 [95% CI, 79.5-89.2] vs 73.6 [95% CI, 69.3-78.0]; P = .002), were more satisfied with the advice (mean, 4.2 [95% CI, 4.0-4.4] vs 3.7 [95% CI, 3.5-3.8]; P < .001), and were readier to make a decision (mean, 63.5 [95% CI, 57.4-69.6] vs 53.2 [95% CI, 47.8-58.7]; P = .016) than the control group. Physicians who reported patients in both settings seemed satisfied with the advice given.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated a novel education intervention for training oncology physicians in providing CIM advice in routine care. Providing structured CIM consultations had positive effects on patient satisfaction, readiness to make decisions, and physician-patient communication.

The use of complementary and integrative therapies as adjunct interventions during radiotherapy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Literature supporting the efficacy of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) alongside radiotherapy is fragmented with varying outcomes and levels of evidence. This review summarizes the available evidence on CIM used with radiotherapy in order to inform clinicians.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified studies on the use of CIM during radiotherapy. Inclusion required the following criteria: the study was interventional, CIM therapy was for human patients with cancer, and CIM therapy was administered concurrently with radiotherapy. Data points of interest were collected from included studies. A subset was identified as high-quality using the Jadad scale. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the association between study results, outcome measured, and type of CIM.

RESULTS

Overall, 163 articles met inclusion. Of these, 68 (41.7%) were considered high-quality trials. Articles published per year increased over time (p < 0.01). Frequently identified therapies were biologically based therapies (47.9%), mind-body therapies (23.3%), and alternative medical systems (13.5%). Within the subset of high-quality trials, 60.0% of studies reported a favorable change with CIM while 40.0% reported no change. No studies reported an unfavorable change. Commonly assessed outcome types were patient-reported (41.1%) and provider-reported (21.5%). Rate of favorable change did not differ based on type of CIM (p = 0.90) or outcome measured (p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent CIM may reduce radiotherapy-induced toxicities and improve quality of life, suggesting that physicians should discuss CIM with patients receiving radiotherapy. This review provides a broad overview of investigations on CIM use during radiotherapy and can inform how radiation oncologists advise their patients about CIM.