| Literature DB >> 30696465 |
Stefanie M Helmer1, Alizé A Rogge1, Felix Fischer2, Daniel Pach1, Markus Horneber3, Stephanie Roll1, Claudia M Witt4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients are interested in complementary and integrative medicine during and after regular cancer treatment. Given the high number of users it is important that physicians and patients engage in a dialog about useful complementary and integrative medicine therapies during cancer treatment. In a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized evaluation study we will develop, implement and evaluate a training program for oncology physicians advising their patients on complementary and integrative medicine. The main objective of the study is to evaluate whether training physicians in a blended-learning approach (e-learning + skills-training workshop) in providing advice to their cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine, in addition to handing out an information leaflet about reputable websites, has different effects on the outcomes of patients, physicians, and their interaction level, compared to only giving out the information leaflet. METHODS/Entities:
Keywords: Adverse effects; Blended learning; Cancer; Communication; Complementary medicine; Integrative medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30696465 PMCID: PMC6352447 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3193-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Fig. 1KOKON-KTO study flow chart. aIncludes questions about knowledge about complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). bIncludes provision of medical information by MD. *Oncology physicians (MD, medical doctor), **Patients
Outcomes
| Domain | Method of measurement | Metric | Time frame | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physician level | ||||
| Main outcome | Perceived consultation skill competency | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Weeks 7–30 |
| Perceived stress reaction | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Weeks 7–30 | |
| Further outcomes | Level of CIM knowledge in cancer care | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, multiple response | Enrollment, |
| Expectations regarding the effectiveness of CIM | 5-point Likert scale | Fully agree to fully disagree | Enrollment, | |
| Expectations regarding the side effects of CIM | NRS | very safe (0) to not safe at all (10) | Enrollment, | |
| Personal attitude towards CIM | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Enrollment, | |
| Personal attitude towards CIM after knowing the results of the Situational Judgment Test that are based on expert ratings | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Week 6 | |
| Application of the project-developed communication manual about CIM in oncology | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, 1 response | Weeks 1–6 | |
| Handling challenges in consultations about CIM therapies | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Enrollment, | |
| Implementability of the manual-based consultation in the treating oncology physicians’ daily work | 6-point Likert scale | Very good to not at all | Weeks 7–30, | |
| Duration of the CIM consultation | Time | Minutes | Weeks 7–30 | |
| Reasons for communications longer than 20 min | Open-ended question | Weeks 7–30 | ||
| Patient level | ||||
| Main outcomes | Communication between physician and patient. | EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 | Not at all (1) to fully agree (4) | Week 2 |
| Patient satisfaction | PS-CaTE | Not at all (1) to fully agree (5) | Week 2 | |
| Preparation for decision-making | PrepDM | Not at all (1) to very much (5) | Week 2 | |
| Further outcomes | Knowledge of CIM in cancer care | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, 1 response | − t1, |
| Use of the recommended reputable websites about CIM in cancer care and subjectively experiences usefulness of the website | NRS | Very helpful (0) to not helpful at all (10) | Week 2 | |
| Physician’s attitude towards CIM | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Week 2 | |
| Use of CIM and subjective therapeutic success | Multiple-choice questions | 3 options: positive, negative, not sure | Week 2 | |
| Physician-patient-interaction level | ||||
| Main outcomes | Performance during communication with standardized patients | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Week 7 |
| Interactive and communicative competencies | MAPI | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (5) | Week 7 | |
CIM complementary and integrative medicine, EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 EORTC communication module, MAPI Munich Physician Patient Interaction Inventory, NRS numerical rating scale, PrepDM Preparation for Decision Making, PS-CaTE Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Education
Fig. 2Content of the KOKON-KTO schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Statement. *Oncology physicians (MD, medical doctor), **Patients
Curriculum of the KOKON-KTO training
| Source | Course title | Content | Time (units) |
|---|---|---|---|
| e-learning | Complementary medicine for cancer | • Definition of CIM | 1 |
| CIM therapies | • Whole medical systems | 6 | |
| KOKON-KTO consultation | • KOKON-KTO consultation manual | 2 | |
| Workshop | Day 1 | • Role plays | 8 |
| Day 2 | • Challenges arising during CIM consultations by observing two role plays with an expert as consultation-leading physician | 8 |
CIM complementary and integrative medicine