Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35149568›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Interprofessional evidence-based counselling programme for complementary and integrative healthcare in patients with cancer: study protocol for the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ.

Jan Valentini, Daniela Fröhlich, Regina Stolz, Cornelia Mahler, Peter Martus, Nadja Klafke, Markus Horneber, Jona Frasch, Klaus Kramer, Hartmut Bertz and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Jan ValentiniInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany jan.valentini@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4870-1853
Daniela FröhlichInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Regina StolzInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Cornelia MahlerInstitute for Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Peter MartusInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Nadja KlafkeDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Reseach, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus HorneberDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Pneumology, Paracelsus Medical University, Klinikum Nurnberg, Nurnberg, Germany.
Jona FraschaQua Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care, Goettingen, Germany.
Klaus KramerDepartment of Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Hartmut BertzDepartment of Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Barbara GrünDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Centre for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Katrin Tomaschko-UbeländerFachbereich Integriertes Leistungsmanagement, AOK Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
CCC-Integrativ study group
University Children's Hospital Tübingen · DEHeidelberg University · DEAOK · DEIntegrative Medicine Institute · USParacelsus Medical University · ATUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccording to international literature, patients with cancer wish to have information on complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH). Medical guidelines recommend actively approaching patients with cancer discussing potential benefits and risks of individual CIH methods. While some CIH methods, for example, acupuncture and yoga, have been proven effective in high-quality studies, other CIH methods lack studies or bear the risk of interactions with chemotherapeutics, for example, herbal drugs. Therefore, an evidence-based interprofessional counselling programme on CIH will be implemented at four Comprehensive Cancer Centres in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A complex intervention consisting of elements on patient, provider and system levels will be developed and evaluated within a multilayer evaluation design with confirmatory evaluation on patient level. Patients with a cancer diagnosis within the last 6 months will receive three individual counselling sessions on CIH within 3 months (=intervention on patient level). The counselling will be provided by an interprofessional team of medical and nursing staff. For this purpose, an intensive online training programme, a CIH knowledge database and an interprofessional team-building process were developed and implemented (=intervention on provider level). Moreover, training events on the basics of CIH are offered in the outpatient setting (=intervention on system level). Primary outcome of the evaluation at the patient level is patient activation measured (PAM) with the PAM-13 after 3 months. Secondary outcomes, for example, quality of life, self-efficacy and clinical parameters, will be assessed at baseline, after 3 months and at 6 months follow-up. The intervention group (n=1000) will be compared with a control group (n=500, treatment as usual, no CIH counselling. The outcomes and follow-up times in the control group are the same as in the intervention group. Moreover, the use of health services will be analysed in both groups using routine data. A qualitative-quantitative process evaluation as well as a health economic evaluation will identify relevant barriers and enabling factors for later roll-out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the appropriate Institutional Ethical Committee of the University of Tuebingen, No. 658/2019BO1. The results of these studies will be disseminated to academic audiences and in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00021779; Pre-results.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeCounselingDelivery of Health CareGermanyHumansQualitative Researchadult oncologycomplementary medicineherbal medicinenutritional supportoncologypreventive medicine

Identifiers

PMID35149568
PMCPMC8845169
OpenAlexW4211227702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.