OBJECTIVE: Justifiable concerns around the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) amongst cancer patients are becoming increasingly prominent. The aim was to develop evidence-based guidelines to assist oncology health professionals (HP) to have respectful, balanced and useful discussions with patients about CAM. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, covering relevant literature from 1997 to 2007. The level of evidence was rated using a standardized rating system. The evidence was qualitatively synthesised into structured recommendations by a multidisciplinary team including a consumer. RESULTS: The search identified 78 original papers; 36 directly related to discussing CAM. No randomized controlled trials specifically addressing the methods or benefits of discussing CAM were identified. Evidence based guidelines are presented as a sequence of recommended steps: (1) Elicit the person's understanding of their situation; (2) Respect cultural and linguistic diversity and different epistemological frameworks; (3) Ask questions about CAM use at critical points in the illness trajectory; (4) Explore details and actively listen; (5) Respond to the person's emotional state; (6) Discuss relevant concerns while respecting the person's beliefs; (7) Provide balanced, evidence-based advice; (8) Summarize discussions; (9) Document the discussion; (10) Monitor and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This represents the first comprehensive guidelines for discussing CAM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the concerns surrounding CAM use, it is critical to encourage informed decision-making about CAM and ultimately, improve outcomes for patients. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Justifiable concerns around the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) amongst cancerpatients are becoming increasingly prominent. The aim was to develop evidence-based guidelines to assist oncology health professionals (HP) to have respectful, balanced and useful discussions with patients about CAM. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, covering relevant literature from 1997 to 2007. The level of evidence was rated using a standardized rating system. The evidence was qualitatively synthesised into structured recommendations by a multidisciplinary team including a consumer. RESULTS: The search identified 78 original papers; 36 directly related to discussing CAM. No randomized controlled trials specifically addressing the methods or benefits of discussing CAM were identified. Evidence based guidelines are presented as a sequence of recommended steps: (1) Elicit the person's understanding of their situation; (2) Respect cultural and linguistic diversity and different epistemological frameworks; (3) Ask questions about CAM use at critical points in the illness trajectory; (4) Explore details and actively listen; (5) Respond to the person's emotional state; (6) Discuss relevant concerns while respecting the person's beliefs; (7) Provide balanced, evidence-based advice; (8) Summarize discussions; (9) Document the discussion; (10) Monitor and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This represents the first comprehensive guidelines for discussing CAM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the concerns surrounding CAM use, it is critical to encourage informed decision-making about CAM and ultimately, improve outcomes for patients. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Laura Tenner; Fay J Hlubocky; Charles D Blanke; Thomas W LeBlanc; Jonathan M Marron; Molly M McGinnis; Rebecca A Spence; Lynne P Taylor Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Eran Ben-Arye; Elad Schiff; Kamer Mutafoglu; Suha Omran; Ramzi Hajjar; Haris Charalambous; Tahani Dweikat; Ibtisam Ghrayeb; Gil Bar Sela; Ibrahim Turker; Azza Hassan; Esmat Hassan; Ariela Popper-Giveon; Bashar Saad; Omar Nimri; Rejin Kebudi; Jamal Dagash; Michael Silbermann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nico van Zandwijk; Christopher Clarke; Douglas Henderson; A William Musk; Kwun Fong; Anna Nowak; Robert Loneragan; Brian McCaughan; Michael Boyer; Malcolm Feigen; David Currow; Penelope Schofield; Beth Ivimey Nick Pavlakis; Jocelyn McLean; Henry Marshall; Steven Leong; Victoria Keena; Andrew Penman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.895