19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mapping the risk perception and communication gap between different professions of healthcare providers in cancer care: a cross-sectional protocol

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Studies show that patients with cancer who use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) have a poorer survival prognosis than those who do not. It remains unclear whether this is due to a priori poorer prognosis that makes patients turn to CAM, or whether there is a factor associated with CAM use itself that influences the prognosis negatively. Healthcare providers should assist patients in safeguarding their treatment decision. However, the current non-communication between CAM and conventional providers leaves it up to the patients themselves to choose how to best integrate the two worlds of therapy. In this study, an interactive shared decision-making (SDM) tool will be developed to enable patients and health professionals to make safe health choices.

          Methods and analysis

          We will delineate, compare and evaluate perception and clinical experience of communication of risk situations among oncology experts, general practitioners and CAM practitioners. To accomplish this, we will develop a pilot and implement a large-scale survey among the aforementioned health professionals in Norway. Guided by the survey results, we will develop a β-version of a shared decision-making tool for healthcare providers to use in guiding patients to make safe CAM decisions.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Participants must give their informed and written consent before inclusion. They will be informed about the opportunity to drop out from the study followed by deletion of all data registered. The study needs no approval from The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics because all participants are healthcare professionals. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed medical journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine.

          The dominant model of disease today is biomedical, and it leaves no room within tis framework for the social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of illness. A biopsychosocial model is proposed that provides a blueprint for research, a framework for teaching, and a design for action in the real world of health care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey.

            The aim of this study was to explore the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients across a number of European countries. A descriptive survey design was developed. Fourteen countries participated in the study and data was collected through a descriptive questionnaire from 956 patients. Data suggest that CAM is popular among cancer patients with 35.9% using some form of CAM (range among countries 14.8% to 73.1%). A heterogeneous group of 58 therapies were identified as being used. Herbal medicines and remedies were the most commonly used CAM therapies, together with homeopathy, vitamins/minerals, medicinal teas, spiritual therapies and relaxation techniques. Herbal medicine use tripled from use before diagnosis to use since diagnosis with cancer. Multivariate analysis suggested that the profile of the CAM user was that of younger people, female and with higher educational level. The source of information was mainly from friends/family and the media, while physicians and nurses played a small part in providing CAM-related information. The majority used CAM to increase the body's ability to fight cancer or improve physical and emotional well-being, and many seemed to have benefited from using CAM (even though the benefits were not necessarily related to the initial reason for using CAM). Some 4.4% of patients, however, reported side-effects, mostly transient. It is imperative that health professionals explore the use of CAM with their cancer patients, educate them about potentially beneficial therapies in light of the limited available evidence of effectiveness, and work towards an integrated model of health-care provision.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

              No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for "current use" of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2015
                3 September 2015
                : 5
                : 9
                : e008236
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Community Medicine, The National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway , Tromsø, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine , Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
                [3 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine , Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Trine Stub; trine.stub@ 123456uit.no
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-008236
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008236
                4563259
                26338839
                2111dae4-a16f-4640-96e0-7f1972a494fe
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 18 March 2015
                : 4 August 2015
                : 12 August 2015
                Categories
                Communication
                Protocol
                1506
                1684
                1684
                1685
                1717

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article