BACKGROUND: A high proportion of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In oncology, risks of CAM are side effects and interactions. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a survey on professionals in palliative care regarding attitudes toward CAM. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: An internet-based survey with a standardized questionnaire was sent to all members of the German Society for Palliative Care. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire collected data on attitude toward CAM and experiences. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety questionnaires (19 %) were returned (49 % physicians, 35 % nurses, 3 % psychologists). Acceptance of CAM is high (92 % for complementary and 54 % for alternative medicine). Most participants had already been asked on CAM by patients (95 %) and relatives (89 %). Forty-four percent already had used complementary methods and 5 % alternative methods. Only 21 % think themselves adequately informed. Seventy-four percent would use complementary methods in a patient with advanced tumor, and 62 % would use alternative therapy in patients if there was no other therapy. Even from those who are skeptical 45 % would treat a patient with alternative methods. CONCLUSIONS: In order to inform patients on CAM and to further patients' autonomy, evidence on benefits and harms of CAM must be provided. As awareness of risks from CAM is low and critical appraisal especially of alternative medicine missing, but interest on information on CAM is high, experts should provide evidence-based recommendations for CAM in palliative care to members of different professions. This could be done by a curriculum focusing on the most often used CAM methods.
BACKGROUND: A high proportion of cancerpatients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In oncology, risks of CAM are side effects and interactions. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to conduct a survey on professionals in palliative care regarding attitudes toward CAM. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: An internet-based survey with a standardized questionnaire was sent to all members of the German Society for Palliative Care. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire collected data on attitude toward CAM and experiences. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety questionnaires (19 %) were returned (49 % physicians, 35 % nurses, 3 % psychologists). Acceptance of CAM is high (92 % for complementary and 54 % for alternative medicine). Most participants had already been asked on CAM by patients (95 %) and relatives (89 %). Forty-four percent already had used complementary methods and 5 % alternative methods. Only 21 % think themselves adequately informed. Seventy-four percent would use complementary methods in a patient with advanced tumor, and 62 % would use alternative therapy in patients if there was no other therapy. Even from those who are skeptical 45 % would treat a patient with alternative methods. CONCLUSIONS: In order to inform patients on CAM and to further patients' autonomy, evidence on benefits and harms of CAM must be provided. As awareness of risks from CAM is low and critical appraisal especially of alternative medicine missing, but interest on information on CAM is high, experts should provide evidence-based recommendations for CAM in palliative care to members of different professions. This could be done by a curriculum focusing on the most often used CAM methods.
Authors: A Molassiotis; P Fernández-Ortega; D Pud; G Ozden; J A Scott; V Panteli; A Margulies; M Browall; M Magri; S Selvekerova; E Madsen; L Milovics; I Bruyns; G Gudmundsdottir; S Hummerston; A M-A Ahmad; N Platin; N Kearney; E Patiraki Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: T Zeller; K Muenstedt; C Stoll; J Schweder; B Senf; E Ruckhaeberle; S Becker; H Serve; J Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: A Trimborn; B Senf; K Muenstedt; J Buentzel; O Micke; R Muecke; F J Prott; S Wicker; J Huebner Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Ralph Muecke; Magdalena Paul; Christina Conrad; Christoph Stoll; Karsten Muenstedt; Oliver Micke; Franz J Prott; Jens Buentzel; Jutta Huebner Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 3.279
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
Authors: Massimiliano Berretta; Luca Rinaldi; Rosaria Taibi; Paolo Tralongo; Alberto Fulvi; Vincenzo Montesarchio; Giordano Madeddu; Paolo Magistri; Sabrina Bimonte; Marco Trovò; Patrizia Gnagnarella; Arturo Cuomo; Marco Cascella; Arben Lleshi; Guglielmo Nasti; Sergio Facchini; Francesco Fiorica; Raffaele Di Francia; Giuseppe Nunnari; Giovanni Francesco Pellicanò; Aurelio Guglielmino; Marco Danova; Sabrina Rossetti; Alfonso Amore; Anna Crispo; Gaetano Facchini Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 6.244