Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31101701›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

Jon Tilburt, Kathleen J Yost, Heinz-Josef Lenz, María Luisa Zúñiga, Thomas O'Byrne, Megan E Branda, Aaron L Leppin, Brittany Kimball, Cara Fernandez, Aminah Jatoi and 7 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors.

Jon TilburtDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA tilburt.jon@mayo.edu.
Kathleen J YostRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Heinz-Josef LenzDivision of Medical Oncology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles California, USA.
María Luisa ZúñigaSchool of Social Work, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA.
Thomas O'ByrneRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Megan E BrandaRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Aaron L LeppinDivision of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Brittany KimballDepartments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Cara FernandezKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Aminah JatoiDivision of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Amelia BarwiseDivision of Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Ashok KumbamuRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Victor MontoriDivision of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Barbara A KoenigProgram in Bioethics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Gail GellerBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Susan LarsonDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Debra L RoterDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
Assessing Patient Experience in Cancer Care: An Observational Communication StudyR01AT006515 · NCCIH · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI TILBURT, JON C · 2011 to 2015
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S.

methodsIn two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering.

resultsSixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site.

conclusionThe frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsAgedComplementary TherapiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Time FactorsUnited StatesAlternative medicineComplementary medicineOncologyPatient‐centered care

Identifiers

PMID31101701
PMCPMC6853106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.