Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25009685›Full record

ReviewOpen medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal2014

Decision-making about complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients: integrative literature review.

Laura Weeks, Lynda G Balneaves, Charlotte Paterson, Marja Verhoef

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02975635 (Patients' Preferences for Repair Versus Replacement Restorations), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02975635 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Patients' Preferences for Repair Versus Replacement Restorations

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of GöttingenRan2017 to 2021Enrolled100ConditionsPatient PreferenceArmsQuestionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Integrative and Complementary Health Practices for Chronic Pain: summary of clinical guideline recommendations.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Use of GoFundMeJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura WeeksLaura Weeks, PhD, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario.
Lynda G BalneavesLynda G. Balneaves, RN, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Charlotte PatersonCharlotte Paterson, MSc, PhD, MBChB, MRCGP, is a Research Fellow in the School of Social and Community Medicine at the University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Marja VerhoefMarja Verhoef, PhD, is a Professor and Canada Research Chair in Complementary Medicine in the Department of Community Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cancer consistently report conflict and anxiety when making decisions about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment. To design evidence-informed decision-support strategies, a better understanding is needed of how the decision-making process unfolds for these patients during their experience with cancer. We undertook this study to review the research literature regarding CAM-related decision-making by patients with cancer within the context of treatment, survivorship, and palliation. We also aimed to summarize emergent concepts within a preliminary conceptual framework.

methodsWe conducted an integrative literature review, searching 12 electronic databases for articles published in English that described studies of the process, context, or outcomes of CAM-related decision-making. We summarized descriptive data using frequencies and used a descriptive constant comparative method to analyze statements about original qualitative results, with the goal of identifying distinct concepts pertaining to CAM-related decision-making by patients with cancer and the relationships among these concepts.

resultsOf 425 articles initially identified, 35 met our inclusion criteria. Seven unique concepts related to CAM and cancer decision-making emerged: decision-making phases, information-seeking and evaluation, decision-making roles, beliefs, contextual factors, decision-making outcomes, and the relationship between CAM and conventional medical decision-making. CAM decision-making begins with the diagnosis of cancer and encompasses 3 distinct phases (early, mid, and late), each marked by unique aims for CAM treatment and distinct patterns of information-seeking and evaluation. Phase transitions correspond to changes in health status or other milestones within the cancer trajectory. An emergent conceptual framework illustrating relationships among the 7 central concepts is presented.

interpretationCAM-related decision-making by patients with cancer occurs as a nonlinear, complex, dynamic process. The conceptual framework presented here identifies influential factors within that process, as well as patients' unique needs during different phases. The framework can guide the development and evaluation of theory-based decision-support programs that are responsive to patients' beliefs and preferences.

Indexed as

Decision MakingComplementary TherapiesCultureHumansNeoplasmsPalliative CarePatient PreferenceSocial Values

Identifiers

PMID25009685
PMCPMC4085086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.