Ashok Kumbamu1, Gail Geller2, Aaron Leppin3, Cara Fernandez3, Jon Tilburt4, Barbara Koenig5. 1. 1 Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery , Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. 2 Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, Maryland. 3. 3 Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota. 4. 4 Program in Professionalism and Bioethics, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, Minnesota. 5. 5 Institute for Health Aging, University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this article, the authors characterize the different ways patients and clinicians discuss complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during routine cancer care. METHODS: Over a period of two years, the authors audio-recorded clinical interactions between 37 medical oncology clinicians and a sample of 327 oncology patients at an academic cancer center in the Midwest United States. Recordings of conversations that included any discussion of CAM were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Out of 327 conversations, CAM was mentioned and/or discussed in only 31 encounters. Communication dynamics between clinician and patient involve several factors: the condition of the patient and his or her knowledge about and experience with CAM, the clinician's knowledge and values about CAM, perceived assumptions and stereotypes about CAM, and institutional response to the integration of CAM in cancer care. CONCLUSION: Addressing the difficult and sensitive topic of CAM in cancer care requires hearing patients in a manner meaningful to them. In that sense, CAM can serve as an important marker and test case in the march toward shared decision-making and patient-centered communication generally.
OBJECTIVE: In this article, the authors characterize the different ways patients and clinicians discuss complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during routine cancer care. METHODS: Over a period of two years, the authors audio-recorded clinical interactions between 37 medical oncology clinicians and a sample of 327 oncology patients at an academic cancer center in the Midwest United States. Recordings of conversations that included any discussion of CAM were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Out of 327 conversations, CAM was mentioned and/or discussed in only 31 encounters. Communication dynamics between clinician and patient involve several factors: the condition of the patient and his or her knowledge about and experience with CAM, the clinician's knowledge and values about CAM, perceived assumptions and stereotypes about CAM, and institutional response to the integration of CAM in cancer care. CONCLUSION: Addressing the difficult and sensitive topic of CAM in cancer care requires hearingpatients in a manner meaningful to them. In that sense, CAM can serve as an important marker and test case in the march toward shared decision-making and patient-centered communication generally.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical deliberations; complementary and alternative medicine; oncology; patient–physician communication; qualitative content analysis
Authors: Brittany C Kimball; Katherine M James; Kathleen J Yost; Cara A Fernandez; Ashok Kumbamu; Aaron L Leppin; Marguerite E Robinson; Gail Geller; Debra L Roter; Susan M Larson; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Agustin A Garcia; Clarence H Braddock; Aminah Jatoi; María Luisa Zúñiga de Nuncio; Victor M Montori; Barbara A Koenig; Jon C Tilburt Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Lynda G Balneaves; Cody Z Watling; Emilie N Hayward; Brenda Ross; Jill Taylor-Brown; Antony Porcino; Tracy L O Truant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 13.506