PubMed · 14594978
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Ernst. 2003. Complementary evidence.. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309601131
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
GOALS OF WORK: To assess complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies being utilized by cancer patients during treatment and communication about CAM usage between the patient and physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy were recruited to complete a CAM survey within 2 weeks after the termination of treatment. Patients were queried on which CAM modalities they utilized and whether or not they were discussed with either their oncologist or primary care physician. MAIN RESULTS: Of the patients surveyed, 91% reported using at least one form of CAM. The most widely used forms of CAM were prayer, relaxation and exercise. CAM users tended to be women chemotherapy patients with at least a high school education. Of the patients using CAM, 57% discussed the use of at least one of these therapies with their oncologist or primary care physician. The most frequent CAM modalities discussed with at least one physician were diets, massage, and herbal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: An overwhelming proportion of cancer patients are using CAM, particularly prayer, relaxation, and exercise. However, patients may not discuss the use of CAMs at all or fully with their physician; if they do, it is most likely to be their oncologist, but not about the most frequently used CAMs. Future research needs to assess effective ways for oncologists to gather information about CAM usage by patients during allopathic treatment and discern ways these therapies may enhance or interfere with traditional cancer treatments.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about policies governing the integration of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies and providers. METHODS: To document emerging approaches in 19 US hospitals regarding credentialing, malpractice liability, and pharmacy policies governing integration of CAM therapies and providers into conventional medical settings, we surveyed 21 academic medical centers and 13 non-academically affiliated hospitals that are nationally visible and are integrating CAM therapies into conventional medical settings. Of the 19 respondents, 11 were tertiary care hospitals, 6 were community hospitals, 1 was a freestanding center associated with a community-based hospital, and 1 was a university-based rehabilitation hospital. RESULTS: Institutions had no consistent approach to provider mix and authority within the integrative care team, and minimum requirements for professional liability insurance, informed consent disclosure, and hiring status. Less than a third had a formal (stated) policy concerning dietary supplements; those selling supplements in their pharmacy lacked consistent, evidence-based rationales regarding which products and brands to include or exclude. Although many hospitals confiscated patient supplements on admission, institutions had inconsistent criteria regarding allowance of home supply. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals are using heterogeneous approaches to address licensure, credentialing, scope of practice, malpractice liability, and dietary supplement use in developing models of integrative care. The environment creates significant impediments to the delivery of consistent clinical care and multisite evaluations of the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness (or lack thereof) of CAM therapies (or integrative models) as applied to management of common medical conditions. Consensus policies need to be developed.