Christian Keinki1, Emadaldin Ahmadi2, Karin Kastrati3, Bijan Zomorodbakhsch4, Jutta Hübner2. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany; christian.keinki@gmx.de. 2. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany. 3. Das Lebenshaus e.V., Wölfersheim, Germany. 4. Onkologische Kooperation Harz, Goslar, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Non-medical practitioners (NMPs) are an ill-defined group of professionals offering patient diagnostic and therapeutic methods mostly in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite a lack of quality-assessed structured professional formation, many patients with cancer visit NMPs for advice. This study aimed to learn more on patients' motives and expectations for consulting an NMP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was distributed to adult cancer patients addressing attitudes towards NMPs, motives and expectations for consulting an NMP. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients took part in the survey. Of the included patients 44.8% had already visited an NMP and 16.5% planned to do so. Reasons to visit an NMP were seeking for a supplementary treatment (72.0%) or control of side-effects (68.0%). While the oncologist ranked higher than the NMP in all aspects of physician-patient interaction and patients more often trusted in the oncologist, those patients rating their oncologist rather low in any of these questions significantly more often consulted an NMP. The methods applied or recommended by the NMPs were highly heterogenous ranging from biologically-based methods to mind-body-techniques. Most often used methods were homeopathy (72.0%) vitamin D (62.7%), selenium (42.7%), acupuncture (38.7%). CONCLUSION: There is a high proportion of cancer patients visiting NMPs mostly for additional treatment. Biologically-based treatments may induce side-effects and interactions, especially as NMPs are not trained on medically accepted cancer treatment and medications. Offering information on CAM and improving the physician-patient relationship are important means to answer unmet needs from the side of the patient.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Non-medical practitioners (NMPs) are an ill-defined group of professionals offering patient diagnostic and therapeutic methods mostly in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite a lack of quality-assessed structured professional formation, many patients with cancer visit NMPs for advice. This study aimed to learn more on patients' motives and expectations for consulting an NMP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was distributed to adult cancer patients addressing attitudes towards NMPs, motives and expectations for consulting an NMP. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients took part in the survey. Of the included patients 44.8% had already visited an NMP and 16.5% planned to do so. Reasons to visit an NMP were seeking for a supplementary treatment (72.0%) or control of side-effects (68.0%). While the oncologist ranked higher than the NMP in all aspects of physician-patient interaction and patients more often trusted in the oncologist, those patients rating their oncologist rather low in any of these questions significantly more often consulted an NMP. The methods applied or recommended by the NMPs were highly heterogenous ranging from biologically-based methods to mind-body-techniques. Most often used methods were homeopathy (72.0%) vitamin D (62.7%), selenium (42.7%), acupuncture (38.7%). CONCLUSION: There is a high proportion of cancer patients visiting NMPs mostly for additional treatment. Biologically-based treatments may induce side-effects and interactions, especially as NMPs are not trained on medically accepted cancer treatment and medications. Offering information on CAM and improving the physician-patient relationship are important means to answer unmet needs from the side of the patient.
Authors: Jonas Nilsson; Mikael Källman; Ulrika Östlund; Georg Holgersson; Michael Bergqvist; Stefan Bergström Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: A Molassiotis; P Fernández-Ortega; D Pud; G Ozden; J A Scott; V Panteli; A Margulies; M Browall; M Magri; S Selvekerova; E Madsen; L Milovics; I Bruyns; G Gudmundsdottir; S Hummerston; A M-A Ahmad; N Platin; N Kearney; E Patiraki Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Kurian Joseph; Sebastian Vrouwe; Anmmd Kamruzzaman; Ali Balbaid; David Fenton; Richard Berendt; Edward Yu; Patricia Tai Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 2.754