Effects of training oncology physicians advising patients on complementary and integrative therapies on patient-reported outcomes: A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial.
cancer
clinical trials
complementary medicine
integrative oncology
physician-patient communication
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
revised:
19
02
2021
received:
21
12
2020
accepted:
12
03
2021
pubmed:
28
4
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
27
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00012704']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2683-2692Subventions
Organisme : Günther und Regine Kelm Stiftung
Organisme : Deutsche Krebshilfe
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.
Références
Arthur K, Belliard JC, Hardin SB, Knecht K, Chen CS, Montgomery S. Reasons to use and disclose use of complementary medicine use-an insight from cancer patients. Cancer Clin Oncol. 2013;2:81-92.
Jermini M, Dubois J, Rodondi PY, et al. Complementary medicine use during cancer treatment and potential herb-drug interactions from a cross-sectional study in an academic centre. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5078.
Chang KH, Brodie R, Choong MA, Sweeney KJ, Kerin MJ. Complementary and alternative medicine use in oncology: a questionnaire survey of patients and health care professionals. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:196.
Foley H, Steel A, Cramer H, Wardle J, Adams J. Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1573.
Jou J, Johnson PJ. Nondisclosure of complementary and alternative medicine use to primary care physicians: findings from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:545-546.
Sohl SJ, Borowski LA, Kent EE, et al. Cancer survivors' disclosure of complementary health approaches to physicians: the role of patient-centered communication. Cancer. 2015;121:900-907.
Lyman GH, Greenlee H, Bohlke K, et al. Integrative therapies during and after breast cancer treatment: ASCO endorsement of the SIO clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2647-2655.
Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, et al. Breast cancer patients' expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:479-484.
Degner LF, Sloan JA. Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:941-950.
Tamirisa NP, Goodwin JS, Kandalam A, et al. Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer. Health Expect. 2017;20:1248-1253.
Kessel KA, Lettner S, Kessel C, et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as part of the oncological treatment: survey about patients' attitude towards CAM in a university-based oncology center in Germany. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0165801.
Stub T, Quandt SA, Arcury TA, et al. Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients' use of complementary therapies: a literature review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16:353.
Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Complementary medicine, refusal of conventional cancer therapy, and survival among patients with curable cancers. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1375-1381.
Witt CM, Balneaves LG, Cardoso MJ, et al. A comprehensive definition for integrative oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2017;2017:lgx012.
Witt CM, Balneaves LG, Carlson LE, et al. Education competencies for integrative oncology-results of a systematic review and an international and interprofessional consensus procedure. J Cancer Educ. Published online August 11, 2020. doi:10.1007/s13187-020-01829-8
Frenkel M, Ben-Arye E, Cohen L. Communication in cancer care: discussing complementary and alternative medicine. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010;9:177-185.
Frenkel M, Cohen L. Effective communication about the use of complementary and integrative medicine in cancer care. J Altern Complement Med. 2014;20:12-18.
Kissane DW, Bylund CL, Banerjee SC, et al. Communication skills training for oncology professionals. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1242-1247.
Stovall MC. Oncology communication skills training: bringing science to the art of delivering bad news. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2015;6:162-166.
Ben-Arye E, Frenkel M, Bar-Sela G, Margalit RS, Hermoni D, Kuten A. Teaching complementary medicine at an academic oncology department. J Cancer Educ. 2008;23:46-50.
Witt CM, Helmer SM, Schofield P, et al. Training oncology physicians to advise their patients on complementary and integrative medicine: an implementation study for a manual-guided consultation. Cancer. 2020;126:3031-3041.
Helmer SM, Rogge AA, Fischer F, et al. 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. Trials. 2019;20:90.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322-1327.
Fischer F, Helmer S, Rogge A, et al. Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology-a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:808.
Arraras JI, Wintner LM, Sztankay M, et al. EORTC QLQ-COMU26: a questionnaire for the assessment of communication between patients and professionals. Phase III of the module development in ten countries. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25:1485-1494.
Liekweg A, Eckhardt M, Taylor SCM, Erdfelder E, Jaehde U. Psychometric assessment and application of a questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27:96-103.
Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Kearing SA, Clay KF, O’Connor AM. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:130-133.
Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) measure at the example of cancer patients. Article in German. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58:5-15.
RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio; 2015.
Flick U. Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods. Vol 2. Sage; 2018.
MAXQDA Analytics Pro. VERBI; 2016.
Blodt S, Mittring N, Schutzler L, et al. A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:843.
Howard M, Fleming ML, Parker E. Patients do not always complain when they are dissatisfied: implications for service quality and patient safety. J Patient Saf. 2013;9:224-231.
Corbin Winslow L, Shapiro H. Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1176-1181.