Peter Savas1, Amanda Robertson1, Lisa Beatty1, Emily Hookings2, Margaret McGee3, Julie Marker4, Belle McCaleb5, Joanne Bowen6, Alison Richards1, Bogda Koczwara1. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. 3. Dame Roma Mitchell Cancer Research Laboratories, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 4. Cancer Voices SA, Kensington Park, South Australia, Australia. 5. McCaleb Health Pty Ltd, St. Georges, South Australia, Australia. 6. School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: Complementary therapy use by patients with cancer is highly prevalent, although little is known about the optimal model of integration with conventional care. This study explored patient preferences regarding integration in an Australian context. METHODS: Cancer patients participated in focus groups conducted by an experienced facilitator. Transcripts of discussions were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen female and four male patients took part in eight focus groups. Eleven had received conventional cancer treatment for early-stage disease, and seven for advanced stage. Participants had sound understanding of the distinction between complementary and alternative medicines. There were differing views on whether complementary therapy and conventional cancer services should be colocated. Some participants described colocation as discordant with their reasons for using complementary therapy. Participants valued guidance from oncology health professionals regarding complementary therapy that was tailored to their individual needs. In addition to medical oncologists, nursing staff and affiliated complementary therapists were considered to be appropriate sources for guidance. Additional themes identified in the analysis were also informative: patients achieve autonomy and self-expression through complementary therapies; the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals and limited consultation time are barriers to integration; self-funding of complementary therapies is acceptable to participants. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that while patients have diverse views regarding the optimal integration model, there is no strong preference for geographic colocation of complementary therapy with conventional cancer care. Patients valued personalized information and guidance regarding complementary therapy from health professionals involved in their cancer care.
AIMS: Complementary therapy use by patients with cancer is highly prevalent, although little is known about the optimal model of integration with conventional care. This study explored patient preferences regarding integration in an Australian context. METHODS:Cancerpatients participated in focus groups conducted by an experienced facilitator. Transcripts of discussions were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen female and four male patients took part in eight focus groups. Eleven had received conventional cancer treatment for early-stage disease, and seven for advanced stage. Participants had sound understanding of the distinction between complementary and alternative medicines. There were differing views on whether complementary therapy and conventional cancer services should be colocated. Some participants described colocation as discordant with their reasons for using complementary therapy. Participants valued guidance from oncology health professionals regarding complementary therapy that was tailored to their individual needs. In addition to medical oncologists, nursing staff and affiliated complementary therapists were considered to be appropriate sources for guidance. Additional themes identified in the analysis were also informative: patients achieve autonomy and self-expression through complementary therapies; the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals and limited consultation time are barriers to integration; self-funding of complementary therapies is acceptable to participants. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that while patients have diverse views regarding the optimal integration model, there is no strong preference for geographic colocation of complementary therapy with conventional cancer care. Patients valued personalized information and guidance regarding complementary therapy from health professionals involved in their cancer care.
Authors: Jeremy Y Ng; Tushar Dhawan; Ekaterina Dogadova; Zhala Taghi-Zada; Alexandra Vacca; L Susan Wieland; David Moher Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther Date: 2022-04-12