Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42909109›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Reasons for encounter and recommended interventions in an interprofessional integrative oncology counseling program in outpatient care: a mixed-methods analysis of 1,693 consultation letters.

Andreas Schmitt, Regina Stolz, Holger Mauch, Franziska Mergel, Barbara Grün, Mirjam Krug, Cornelia Mahler, Stefanie Joos, Jan Valentini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Andreas SchmittInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Regina StolzInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Holger MauchInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Franziska MergelDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SLK Clinics Heilbronn, Heilbronn, Germany.
Barbara GrünDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mirjam KrugDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cornelia MahlerDepartment of Nursing Science, Institute of Health Sciences, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Jan ValentiniInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) approaches play an increasingly important role in oncology care, involving a wide range of healthcare professionals and therapeutic methods. While patient demand for CIH and the evidence base for individual interventions have grown considerably, the implementation of structured counseling services for the effective and safe use of CIH remains limited. To address this gap, a controlled, multicenter implementation study was conducted at four Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) in Germany to establish an outpatient, interprofessional, evidence-based counseling service for CIH (CCC-Integrativ). This mixed-methods study investigates the specific reasons for encounter (RfE) and the recommended interventions during these consultations. Methods: Patients enrolled in the CCC-Integrativ study received three CIH consultations within a three-month period, the first of which was conducted jointly by specifically trained physicians and nurses. After each session, a consultation letter was prepared summarizing the main patient RfE and recommendations. All consultation letters were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, and the results were subsequently analyzed quantitatively. Results: A total of 1,693 consultation letters from 603 oncology patients were analyzed. The most frequent reasons for encounter included general weakness and fatigue (56%), chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (40%), sleep disturbances (37%), and general pain (36%). Nearly all patients received counseling on lifestyle modifications, including nutrition (95%), physical activity (93%), and stress management (81%). Additionally, an average of 15 specific CIH interventions were recommended per patient, encompassing naturopathic nursing interventions (97%), herbal medicines and teas (79%), acupressure (79%), and mindfulness-based movement therapies (44%). Discussion: Interprofessional outpatient counseling on CIH in oncology addresses a wide spectrum of patient RfE, provides guidance on lifestyle modifications, and offers specific, individualized CIH interventions to help patients manage burdensome symptoms. These findings suggest that interprofessional integrative counseling services can play a crucial role in outpatient oncology care by providing a holistic approach tailored to individual needs. Furthermore, structured integrative oncology counseling may serve a valuable navigational role within outpatient care settings.

Indexed as

CIHcomplementary and integrative healthcarecomplementary medicineintegrative medicineintegrative oncologyinterprofessional counselingnaturopathic nursing intervention

Identifiers

PMID42909109
PMCPMC13683791

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.