A Trimborn1, B Senf2, K Muenstedt3, J Buentzel4, O Micke5, R Muecke6, F J Prott7, S Wicker8, J Huebner9. 1. Dr. Senckenberg Chronomedical Institute. 2. Department of Psychooncology, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main. 3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Clinic, Gießen. 4. Department of Head and Neck Diseases, Municipal Hospital, Nordhausen. 5. Department of Radiooncology, St. Franziskus Hospital, Bielefeld. 6. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum. 7. RNS Praxisgemeinschaft Radioonology, Wiesbaden. 8. Occupational Health Service, University Clinic, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 9. Dr. Senckenberg Chronomedical Institute. Electronic address: huebner@med.uni-frankfurt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), yet discussion with the oncologist is often missing and oncologists lack knowledge in CAM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to learn more about the attitude of professionals in oncology toward CAM, a survey was conducted on employees of a German university clinic using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 547 employees took part in the survey. One-third would definitely use CAM on cancer patients. Female employees are more interested in CAM than males (80% versus 20%; P = 0.001); physicians are less interested than nurses (57% versus 72%; P = 0.008). 2.5% of physicians and 9% of nurses are convinced that CAM is as effective as conventional therapy in cancer. Fifty-two percent of physicians and 12% of nurses agree that adverse effects due to CAM may be possible. Seventy-three percent did not consider themselves adequately informed on CAM for their professional work. CONCLUSIONS: As a substantial part of participants would use CAM on cancer patients and most are interested in but not trained on this topic, there is a need for training of professionals from different professions working in oncology.
BACKGROUND:Cancerpatients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), yet discussion with the oncologist is often missing and oncologists lack knowledge in CAM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to learn more about the attitude of professionals in oncology toward CAM, a survey was conducted on employees of a German university clinic using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 547 employees took part in the survey. One-third would definitely use CAM on cancerpatients. Female employees are more interested in CAM than males (80% versus 20%; P = 0.001); physicians are less interested than nurses (57% versus 72%; P = 0.008). 2.5% of physicians and 9% of nurses are convinced that CAM is as effective as conventional therapy in cancer. Fifty-two percent of physicians and 12% of nurses agree that adverse effects due to CAM may be possible. Seventy-three percent did not consider themselves adequately informed on CAM for their professional work. CONCLUSIONS: As a substantial part of participants would use CAM on cancerpatients and most are interested in but not trained on this topic, there is a need for training of professionals from different professions working in oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
alternative medicine; attitude of professionals; cancer; complementary medicine
Authors: Marie-Desirée Ebel; Ivonne Rudolph; Christian Keinki; Andrea Hoppe; Ralph Muecke; Oliver Micke; Karsten Muenstedt; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-22 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Carmen Loquai; Dagmar Dechent; Marlene Garzarolli; Martin Kaatz; Katharina C Kaehler; Peter Kurschat; Frank Meiss; Annette Stein; Dorothee Nashan; Oliver Micke; Ralph Muecke; Karsten Muenstedt; Christoph Stoll; Irene Schmidtmann; Jutta Huebner Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: J Kleine Wortmann; A Bremer; H T Eich; H P Kleine Wortmann; A Schuster; J Fühner; J Büntzel; R Muecke; F J Prott; J Huebner Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Evelyn Klein; Matthias W Beckmann; Werner Bader; Cosima Brucker; Gustav Dobos; Dorothea Fischer; Volker Hanf; Annette Hasenburg; Sebastian M Jud; Matthias Kalder; Marion Kiechle; Sherko Kümmel; Andreas Müller; Myrjam-Alice T Müller; Daniela Paepke; Andre-Robert Rotmann; Florian Schütz; Anton Scharl; Petra Voiss; Markus Wallwiener; Claudia Witt; Carolin C Hack Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 2.344