ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015
Expectations from an integrative medicine consultation in breast cancer care: a registry protocol-based study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in integrative medicine and health consults: differences between cancer survivors and patients without cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the rationale given by oncology health care practitioners (HCPs) for referral of their patients with breast cancer to a complementary medicine (CM) consultation with patient expectations from the CM treatment process.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, registry protocol-based, open-label study. We compared the indications given by oncology HCPs for their referral of patients to the CM consultation with patient expectations from the CM therapeutic process. Patients were asked regarding prior CM use for cancer- and non-cancer-related indications.
resultsA total of 127 patients referred to the CM consultation were studied, with half reporting prior CM use. The most popular treatment for non-cancer-related indications was acupuncture (46.9 %), with only 20.3 % reporting herbal medicine use (P ≤ 0.04). For cancer-related indications, herbal medicine was the most popular modality (42.4 %), with 11.6 % reporting acupuncture use. The most frequently cited indications for referral were general symptom reduction (19.7 %), emotional/spiritual relief (18.1 %), alleviation of weakness and fatigue (17.3 %), and reduction of gastrointestinal symptoms (10.2 %). For patients, the most important outcome was alleviation of weakness and fatigue (70.4 %), followed by emotional/spiritual relief (50 %), and the reduction of gastrointestinal symptoms (33.3 %). The correlation between HCP indications for referral and patient expectations was poor (Cohen's kappa of 0.19, 0.328, and 0.20, respectively).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that expectations from a CM treatment process differ greatly between oncology HCPs and patients with breast cancer. The use of a structured clinical referral process and a better understanding of patient concerns are factors which play a central role in the CM referral process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.