Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29386005›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2018

Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care.

Trine Stub, Sara A Quandt, Thomas A Arcury, Joanne C Sandberg, Agnete E Kristoffersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Complementary medicine in radiation oncology : German health care professionals' current qualifications and therapeutic methods.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    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

5 authors.

Trine StubWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. trine.stub@uit.no.
Sara A QuandtWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Thomas A ArcuryWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Joanne C SandbergWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Agnete E KristoffersenThe National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Department of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Sykehusveien 21, 9037, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

Helse Nord RHF HST1190-14
6 · The paper itself

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

Complementary TherapiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Risk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesComplementary and alternative medicine: Cancer carComplementary therapistsConventional health care providersDirect riskIndirect riskPatient safetyRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID29386005
PMCPMC5793440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.