ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2019
Complementary and alternative therapy use in a regional radiation oncology treatment centre: Can staff knowledge, views, confidence and documentation be improved?
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Complementary and alternative therapy use in a regional radiation oncology treatment centre: Can staff knowledge, views, confidence and documentation be improved?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionComplementary and alternative therapies (CATs) are widely used by cancer patients but are infrequently disclosed and documented. This study aimed to improve radiation therapy staff knowledge, confidence, views and documentation of radiation oncology patients' use of CATs.
methodParticipants completed a baseline questionnaire regarding their knowledge, confidence, views and documentation relating to patients' CAT use. An intervention was undertaken whereby participants attended an educational session and a CAT screening tool was implemented simultaneously. Participants immediately completed a post-intervention questionnaire and later a 6-month follow-up questionnaire. A patient record audit was conducted to measure the documentation of CAT use pre- and post-intervention.
resultsFrom baseline to post-intervention, there was a statistically significant shift in staff knowledge and confidence (P = 0.001-0.01). The observed shift was sustained over a 6-month period, (P = 0.453-1.00). Participants' perceived views of CATs did not change as a result of the intervention (P = 0.261-1.000). The post-intervention audit compared to the baseline audit yielded a statistically significant increase in documentation. There was an increase in CAT use mentioned in patient records from 14% (15/108) to 40% (35/88) (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe implementation of a screening tool and staff education increased radiation therapy staff knowledge of CATs and increased staff confidence when discussing CAT use with patients. Documentation of CATs in the patient record increased post-intervention. These changes positively affected radiation therapy staff understanding the use of CATs by cancer patients.
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.