ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2018
Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health Professionals' Attitudes Towards Traditional Healing for Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Investigating complementary and alternative medicine in Norwegian hospitals: a cross-sectional study with process evaluation.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology: A Concise Review of Utilization, Evidence, and Integration Challenges.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Validation of the Questionnaire for the Structured Assessment of the Use of Complementary Medicine Methods and Procedures in Patients from the S3 Guideline Complementary Medicine in Oncology and Practical Use of it in Patients with Gynecological Cancer.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Trends in prevalence and associations of complementary and alternative medicine use in Norway 2012-2024: Insights from seven biennial cross-sectional studies.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Regional Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Results of a Regional Survey.Complementary medicine research · 2024Article
- Supportive care for cancer-related symptoms in pediatric oncology: a qualitative study among healthcare providers.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- Use of CAM among cancer patients : Results of a regional survey in Sweden.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- Complementary medicine usage in surgery: a cross-sectional survey in Germany.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the context of cancer; prevalence, reasons for use, disclosure, information received, risks and benefits reported by people with cancer in Norway.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Iranian healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross sectional study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Communication and information needs about complementary and alternative medicine: a qualitative study of parents of children with cancer.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use by Patients From the Gulf Region Seen in the International Practice of a Tertiary Care Medical Center.Global advances in health and medicine · 2021Article
- Patients' Responses to the Sudden Interruption of Chemotherapy During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Use of traditional and complementary medicine among Norwegian cancer patients in the seventh survey of the Tromsø study.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
- "Then I went to a hospital abroad": acknowledging implications of stakeholders' differing risk understandings related to use of complementary and alternative medicine in European health care contexts.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
- Paradigm-Specific Risk Conceptions, Patient Safety, and the Regulation of Traditional and Complementary Medicine Practitioners: The Case of Homeopathy in Ontario, Canada.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Article
- Complementary medicine in radiation oncology : German health care professionals' current qualifications and therapeutic methods.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- A Survey on the Prescribing Orientation Towards Complementary Therapies Among Oncologists in Italy: Symptoms and Unmet Patient Needs.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- A Qualitative Study Among Healthcare Providers on Risks Associated With the Use of Supportive Care for Cancer Treatment-Related Symptoms in Children and Adolescents.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany complementary therapies offer benefits for patients with cancer. Others may be risky for patients due to negative interactions with conventional treatment and adverse effects. Therefore, cancer patients need guidance from health care providers to assess complementary modalities appropriately to receive benefits and avoid harm.
methodIn a self-administered questionnaire-based cross-sectional study, we compared knowledge and attitudes of health care providers with no training in complementary modalities to that of health care providers with training in complementary modalities about the risks for patients who combine complementary modalities with conventional treatment in cancer care. The analysis was based on responses from 466 participants.
resultsThe attitudes and knowledge about direct risk followed provider specialty. Ninety-four percent of the medical doctors, 93% of the nurses, and 87% of the providers with dual training, but 70% of the complementary therapists, believed that complementary modalities can cause adverse effects (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors and nurses believed that it is risky to combine complementary and conventional cancer treatments (78% and 93%, respectively), compared to 58% of the providers with dual training and 43% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). Eighty-nine percent of the medical doctors and nurses believed that complementary modalities should be subjected to more scientific testing before being accepted by conventional health care providers, in contrast to 56% of the dually trained and 57% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors (61%) and nurses (55%) would have neither discouraged nor encouraged the use of complementary modalities if patients asked them for advice. Moreover, less than 1% of the complementary therapists would have discouraged the use of conventional cancer treatments. The study participants believed that the most important factor to recommend a complementary cancer modality to patients is evidence for safety.
conclusionThe health care providers in this study believed that complementary modalities are associated with direct risk and can cause adverse effects, and that it is risky to combine conventional and complementary treatments due to potential harmful interactions.
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.