Donata Grimm1,2, Petra Voiss3, Daniela Paepke4, Johanna Dietmaier5, Holger Cramer3, Sherko Kümmel6, Matthias W Beckmann7, Linn Woelber5, Barbara Schmalfeldt5, Ulrich Freitag8, Matthias Kalder9, Markus Wallwiener10, Anna-Katharin Theuser11, Carolin C Hack7. 1. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. donatakatharina.grimm@uksh.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Schleswig-Holstein University Medical Center, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany. donatakatharina.grimm@uksh.de. 3. Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, University of Duisburg-Essen, Am Deimelsberg 34a, 45276, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Breast Care Unit, Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Henricistrasse 92, 45136, MastologyEssen, Germany. 7. Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 8. Dipl. Med. Ulrich Freitag, State Association Chairman of the BVF, Private Practice, Turnerweg 11a, 23970, Wismar, Germany. 9. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Phillips University of Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35033, Marburg, Germany. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. Institute for Women's Health (IFG) GmbH, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite patients' widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (IM), few data are available regarding health-care professionals' current implementation of it in clinical routine. A national survey was conducted to assess gynecologists' attitudes to and implementation of complementary and integrative treatment approaches. METHODS: The Working Group on Integrative Medicine of the German Society of Gynecological Oncology conducted an online survey in collaboration with the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in July 2019. A 29-item survey was sent to all DGGG members by email. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 180 gynecologists were analyzed, of whom 61 were working office-based in private practice and 95 were employed in hospitals. Seventy percent stated that IM concepts are implemented in their routine clinical work. Most physicians reported using IM methods in gynecological oncology. The main indications for IM therapies were fatigue (n = 98), nausea and vomiting (n = 89), climacteric symptoms (n = 87), and sleep disturbances (n = 86). The most commonly recommended methods were exercise therapy (n = 86), mistletoe therapy (n = 78), and phytotherapy (n = 74). Gynecologists offering IM were more often female (P = 0.001), more often had qualifications in anthroposophic medicine (P = 0.005) or naturopathy (P = 0.019), and were more often based in large cities (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong interest in IM among gynecologists. The availability of evidence-based training in IM is increasing. Integrative therapy approaches are being implemented in clinical routine more and more, and integrative counseling services are present all over Germany. Efforts should focus on extending evidence-based knowledge of IM in both gynecology and gynecological oncology.
PURPOSE: Despite patients' widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (IM), few data are available regarding health-care professionals' current implementation of it in clinical routine. A national survey was conducted to assess gynecologists' attitudes to and implementation of complementary and integrative treatment approaches. METHODS: The Working Group on Integrative Medicine of the German Society of Gynecological Oncology conducted an online survey in collaboration with the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in July 2019. A 29-item survey was sent to all DGGG members by email. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 180 gynecologists were analyzed, of whom 61 were working office-based in private practice and 95 were employed in hospitals. Seventy percent stated that IM concepts are implemented in their routine clinical work. Most physicians reported using IM methods in gynecological oncology. The main indications for IM therapies were fatigue (n = 98), nausea and vomiting (n = 89), climacteric symptoms (n = 87), and sleep disturbances (n = 86). The most commonly recommended methods were exercise therapy (n = 86), mistletoe therapy (n = 78), and phytotherapy (n = 74). Gynecologists offering IM were more often female (P = 0.001), more often had qualifications in anthroposophic medicine (P = 0.005) or naturopathy (P = 0.019), and were more often based in large cities (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong interest in IM among gynecologists. The availability of evidence-based training in IM is increasing. Integrative therapy approaches are being implemented in clinical routine more and more, and integrative counseling services are present all over Germany. Efforts should focus on extending evidence-based knowledge of IM in both gynecology and gynecological oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitude; Breast cancer; Complementary and alternative medicine; Gynecologic oncology; Integrative medicine; Supportive care
Authors: Neha Vapiwala; Rosemarie Mick; Margaret K Hampshire; James M Metz; Albert S DeNittis Journal: Cancer J Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: V E Von Gruenigen; L J White; M S Kirven; A L Showalter; M P Hopkins; E L Jenison Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2001 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Charlie C L Xue; Anthony L Zhang; Vivian Lin; Cliff Da Costa; David F Story Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.579
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: Laura M Kemppainen; Teemu T Kemppainen; Jutta A Reippainen; Suvi T Salmenniemi; Pia H Vuolanto Journal: Scand J Public Health Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: G S Kienle; E Ben-Arye; B Berger; C Cuadrado Nahum; T Falkenberg; G Kapócs; H Kiene; D Martin; U Wolf; H Szöke Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 2.629