ArticleBMJ open2026
Experiences of healthcare encounters among patients using complementary and alternative medicine alongside oncology or palliative care: a qualitative interview study in Sweden.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA substantial proportion of patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), yet the topic is rarely addressed in clinical encounters. This communication gap may affect patient safety, trust and participation in care. This study aimed to explore how patients experience encounters with healthcare professionals when using CAM alongside oncological or palliative care.
designAn exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis.
settingOncology and palliative care services in a Swedish healthcare region.
participants19 adult patients with cancer who used CAM alongside conventional cancer care and were purposively recruited from a larger regional survey.
resultsPatients described continuously assessing whether it was appropriate to mention CAM. Subtle verbal and non-verbal cues from healthcare professionals shaped perceptions of what was considered legitimate within clinical encounters, often leading to silence or withdrawal. In contrast, neutral or respectful responses facilitated trust and dialogue. Openness regarding CAM was not fixed but adjusted from one encounter to another, influenced by interpersonal interactions, organisational conditions and prevailing evidence norms. Participants expressed a need for respectful dialogue, basic competence among healthcare staff and practical support for safe CAM use, without implying endorsement.
conclusionsPatients who use CAM navigate a healthcare context characterised by shifting relational cues and structural constraints that influence communication. Safe, person-centred care may be supported by normalising discussions about CAM, improving basic staff knowledge and facilitating open dialogue. Such measures may promote trust, improve communication and reduce risks associated with undisclosed CAM use.
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.