Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39031953›Full record

Trial reportCancer medicine2024

Effects of training oncology physicians advising patients on complementary and integrative therapies on patient-reported outcomes: 2-year follow-up of the multi-center, cluster-randomized KOKON-KTO study.

Alizé A Rogge, Stefanie M Helmer, Katja Icke, Claudia M Witt

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Thresholds for clinical importance to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-COMU26 communication questionnaire.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Alizé A RoggeDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5458-4222
Stefanie M HelmerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Katja IckeInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Claudia M WittInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Krebshilfe 70112369Wellcome Trust 109863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany cancer patients wish for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) consultations led by their oncology physician. Within the KOKON-KTO study, oncology physicians in the intervention group were trained in a blended learning to provide CIM consultations to their cancer patients in addition to distributing a leaflet about CIM websites. Control oncology physicians only distributed the leaflet. The training showed positive effects on the patient-level. As of now, no consistent evidence exists on the long-term effects of such one-time-only CIM consultation during cancer treatment.

methodsIn the KOKON-KTO follow-up study, cancer patients previously participating in the KOKON-KTO study (intervention group:IG and control group: CG) received, at least 24 months later, a follow-up questionnaire by post, evaluating long-term effects of the KOKON-KTO consultation using the measures provided in the original study (patient-physician communication (EORTC-QLQ-COMU2), satisfaction with cancer treatment (PS-CaTE), CIM disclosure with healthcare provider (HCP), and need for CIM consultation during cancer therapy).

resultsIn total, 102 cancer patients participated in the follow-up study (IG n = 62; CG n = 40). The overall reponse rate was around 36% (IG: 48.4%; CG: 23.7%). In the follow-up study, differences between groups had increased and were still shown (EORTC-QLQ-COMU26, 0-100 point scale, ≥10-point-group difference) in some subscales: patient's active behavior (in means; IG:73.6 (95% CI, 63.8-83.5); CG:61.1 (95% CI, 52.4-69.8)); clinician-patient relationship (IG:80.9 (95% CI, 71.8-90.0); CG:68.7 (95% CI, 59.3-78.0)). For some outcomes, differences decreased over time (e.g., EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 subscales "takes into account patient's preference" and "corrects misunderstandings"). More patients in the CG used CIM without oncology physicians' knowledge (IG: 13.7%, CG: 24.0%).

conclusionThis study presents first findings that one-time-only CIM consultations may enhance patient-physican relationship and CIM disclosure long-term. To further support cancer patients' in their wish for CIM consultations, training programs should provide oncology physicians with CIM competencies for different cancer stages including cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntegrative MedicineMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedOncologistsPatient Education as TopicPatient Satisfactioncancerfollow‐up studiesintegrative oncologyphysician‐patient communication

Identifiers

PMID39031953
PMCPMC11259559

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.