Emilie N Hayward1, Cody Z Watling1, Lynda G Balneaves2. 1. College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada. 2. College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 89 Curry Place, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada. lynda.balneaves@umanitoba.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Complementary medicine (CM) use is prevalent among cancer patients, yet it is often not assessed by oncology healthcare providers (HCPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncology HCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding CM use before and after the implementation of a practice guideline focusing on standardizing assessment and documentation of CM. METHODS: Oncology HCPs across a provincial cancer agency were invited to participate in the study. The implementation strategy included an initial education session for HCPs and standardized CM assessment forms. Pre-post surveys assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to CM were completed by HCPs prior to attending the education session and following the 4-month implementation period. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine differences between baseline and follow-up surveys. RESULTS: A total of 31 oncology HCPs completed both baseline and follow-up surveys, with over 3700 patient CM assessment forms being completed during the 4-month study period. At the end of the study, HCPs reported greater CM knowledge (p < 0.001), readiness to support cancer patients' CM decisions (p = 0.002), and willingness to consult with another HCP about CM (p = 0.004). No significant change in HCPs' reported attitudes towards CM, or other clinical practices related to CM were observed. CONCLUSION: Implementing a practice guideline, including a CM education session and a standardized assessment form, was found to improve oncology HCPs' self-reported CM knowledge and readiness to answer cancer patients' questions about CM. The findings provide support for future knowledge translation research aimed at standardizing how CM is addressed within cancer care settings.
PURPOSE: Complementary medicine (CM) use is prevalent among cancerpatients, yet it is often not assessed by oncology healthcare providers (HCPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncology HCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding CM use before and after the implementation of a practice guideline focusing on standardizing assessment and documentation of CM. METHODS: Oncology HCPs across a provincial cancer agency were invited to participate in the study. The implementation strategy included an initial education session for HCPs and standardized CM assessment forms. Pre-post surveys assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to CM were completed by HCPs prior to attending the education session and following the 4-month implementation period. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine differences between baseline and follow-up surveys. RESULTS: A total of 31 oncology HCPs completed both baseline and follow-up surveys, with over 3700 patient CM assessment forms being completed during the 4-month study period. At the end of the study, HCPs reported greater CM knowledge (p < 0.001), readiness to support cancerpatients' CM decisions (p = 0.002), and willingness to consult with another HCP about CM (p = 0.004). No significant change in HCPs' reported attitudes towards CM, or other clinical practices related to CM were observed. CONCLUSION: Implementing a practice guideline, including a CM education session and a standardized assessment form, was found to improve oncology HCPs' self-reported CM knowledge and readiness to answer cancerpatients' questions about CM. The findings provide support for future knowledge translation research aimed at standardizing how CM is addressed within cancer care settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitudes; Complementary therapies; Health care provider; Integrative medicine; Knowledge; Neoplasm
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Heather Greenlee; Kari Bohlke; Ting Bao; Angela M DeMichele; Gary E Deng; Judith M Fouladbakhsh; Brigitte Gil; Dawn L Hershman; Sami Mansfield; Dawn M Mussallem; Karen M Mustian; Erin Price; Susan Rafte; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard T Lee; Andrea Barbo; Gabriel Lopez; Amal Melhem-Bertrandt; Heather Lin; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Farr A Curlin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter J Smith; Alexandra M Clavarino; Jeremy E Long; Chris M Anstey; Kathryn J Steadman Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 2.601
Authors: Mahlagha Dehghan; Zakieh Namjoo; Mahlasadat Jafari; Ghazaleh Kordestani; Nazanin Tabebordbar; Fatemeh Payam; Mohammad Ali Zakeri; Sima Mokhtarabadi Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-08-15