ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Perceptions, opinions and knowledge of pharmacists towards the use of complementary medicines by people living with cancer.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis and complementary and integrative medicine (CIM): a survey of healthcare professionals working in a cancer hospital in Australia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- A pre-post evaluation of oncology healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices following the implementation of a complementary medicine practice guideline.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Exploring Herbal Medicine Use during Palliative Cancer Care: The Integrative Physician as a Facilitator of Pharmacist-Patient-Oncologist Communication.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Biologically-based complementary medicine (BB-CM) use is prevalent amongst people living with cancer. Pharmacists play an important role in the provision of standard treatments for cancer. Less is known about pharmacist's provision of BB-CM information. Objective This study investigated the opinions, perceptions and knowledge of pharmacists regarding the use of BB-CMs by people living with cancer and the facilitators and barriers to providing information and advice. Setting Australia. Method A cross-sectional 53-item survey was developed and the survey link distributed in two professional associations newsletters. The associations represent ~29,000 pharmacists. Questions were categories into pharmacist's perceptions, opinions, and knowledge towards the use of BB-CM in cancer. Main Outcome Measure Scores obtained from responses to perception, opinion and knowledge statements and responses to demographic questions Results Respondents (n=70) were predominantly female (73%), Caucasian (66%) and under 40 years of age (78%). Respondents estimated that 19% of daily inquiries related to BB-CMs. Seventy-two per cent of respondents believed they had a responsibility to advise about the concomitant use of BB-CM with standard cancer treatments despite 60% reporting a lack of confidence in their knowledge. There was a moderate positive association (Spearman's rho 0.41 p= 0.001) between a pharmacists confidence in their level of knowledge and their total knowledge scores. The main barriers to providing information about BB-CMs reported were inadequate training in BB-CMs (94%) and reservations about the evidence base for efficacy and safety (50%). Conclusion Pharmacists have a role to play in counselling people living with cancer about their use of BB-CMs and this role could be maximized with further training and education in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29744793What 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.