Clinician perspectives of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) at an academic cancer center
| العنوان: | Clinician perspectives of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) at an academic cancer center |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Catherine Hreachmack, Payal Desai, Maryam B. Lustberg, Michelle Fullmer, Julie A. Stephens, Marium Husain, Dori Klemanski, Sherise C. Rogers, Kathi J. Kemper |
| المصدر: | Journal of Clinical Oncology. 38:e24047-e24047 |
| بيانات النشر: | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2020. |
| سنة النشر: | 2020 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Massage, Oncology, business.industry, Family medicine, Acupuncture, Medicine, Cancer, Center (algebra and category theory), Integrative medicine, business, medicine.disease |
| الوصف: | e24047 Background: Surveys suggest up to 87% of patients with cancer use complementary and integrative (CIM) therapies such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage and mind-body practices. These therapies may assist with symptoms of pain, nausea and anxiety. However, several studies have demonstrated that many clinicians do not inquire about CIM use, which may be due to lack of education and/or limited evidence-based data. We sought to explore the perspectives of clinicians at an academic comprehensive cancer center on the use of CIM therapies. Methods: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) who practice medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology and neuro-oncology in a Midwest tertiary comprehensive cancer center were asked to participate in a 9-question online survey which inquired about their personal knowledge and recommendation for 21 different CIM therapies (not all are offered at the cancer center). Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: The response rate for this survey was 24.5% (n = 49). Responders were from the following specialties: hematology (n = 17; 35%); solid tumor (n = 18; 37%); both hematology and solid tumor (n = 8; 16%), surgical oncology (n = 3; 6%); gynecologic oncology (n = 2; 4%) and radiation oncology (n = 1; 2%). Sixty-seven percent were attending physicians and hematology/oncology fellows (n = 33), and 33% were APPs (n = 16). Median age range was 30-39 years (range 20-59). The most recommended CIM therapy for cancer treatment-related effects was massage (80%), followed by deep breathing (55%). The least recommended CIM therapies were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Ayurvedic medicine (2%), followed by vitamins/minerals and homeopathy (both 6%). Participants requested more education on CBD/CBD oil (59%) and herbs/botanicals (49%). Up to 14% of respondents already had education on five integrative therapies. Conclusions: Hematology/oncology clinicians do not routinely recommend most CIM therapies, except for massage therapy. Efforts should be made to educate clinicians regarding CIM therapies used by patients with cancer as well resources that appraise the efficacy, safety, and potential drug interactions of these therapies. Education could encourage informed decision-making and improved patient-clinician communication and satisfaction. |
| تدمد: | 1527-7755 0732-183X |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::c1c7d82057d0e3b7f086ed282da371a2 https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e24047 |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsair.doi...........c1c7d82057d0e3b7f086ed282da371a2 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
| تدمد: | 15277755 0732183X |
|---|