Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study

Authors: Susanne Blödt, Nadine Mittring, Lena Schützler, Felix Fischer, Christine Holmberg, Markus Horneber, Adele Stapf, Claudia M. Witt

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim was to develop and evaluate a training program for physicians for communicating with breast cancer patients about complementary medicine (CM).

Methods

In a cluster-randomized pilot trial eight breast cancer centers (two physicians per center) were randomized to either a complementary communication training program (9 h e-learning + 20 h on-site skills training) or to a control group without training. Each physician was asked to consult ten patients for whom he or she is not the physician in charge. We used mixed methods: Quantitative outcomes included physicians’ assessments (empathy, complexity of consultation, knowledge transfer) and patients’ assessments (satisfaction, empathy, knowledge transfer). For qualitative analyses, 15 (eight in the training and seven in the control group) videotaped consultations were analyzed based on grounded theory, and separate focus groups with the physicians of both groups were conducted.

Results

A total of 137 patients were included. Although cluster-randomized, physicians in the two groups differed. Those in the training group were younger (33.4 ± 8.9 vs. 40.0 ± 8.5 years) and had less work experience (5.4 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1 ± 7.4 years). Patient satisfaction with the CM consultation was relatively high on a scale from 0 to 24 and was comparable in the two groups (training group: 19.4 ± 4.6; control group 20.5 ± 4.1). The qualitative findings showed that physicians structured majority of consultations as taught during the training. Comparing only the younger and less CM experienced physicians, those trained in CM communication felt more confident discussing CM-related topics than those without training.

Conclusion

A CM communication-training program might be especially beneficial for physicians with less consulting experience when communicating about CM-related issues. A larger trial using more suitable quantitative outcomes needs to confirm this.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02223091, date of registration: 7 February 2014.
Literature
1.
Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M. How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):187–203.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Baum M, Cassileth BR, Daniel R, Ernst E, Filshie J, Nagel GA, Horneber M, Kohn M, Lejeune S, Maher J, et al. The role of complementary and alternative medicine in the management of early breast cancer: recommendations of the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA). Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(12):1711–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Greenlee H, Balneaves LG, Carlson LE, Cohen M, Deng G, Hershman D, Mumber M, Perlmutter J, Seely D, Sen A, et al. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of integrative therapies as supportive care in patients treated for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014;2014(50):346–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Tautz E, Momm F, Hasenburg A, Guethlin C. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in breast cancer patients and their experiences: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(17):3133–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, Christ H, Kaufmann M, Lichtenegger W, Bamberg M, Wallwiener D, Overkamp F, Diedrich K, et al. Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):479–84.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Juraskova I, Hegedus L, Butow P, Smith A, Schofield P. Discussing complementary therapy use with early-stage breast cancer patients: exploring the communication gap. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010;9(2):168–76.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Huebner J, Muenstedt K, Prott FJ, Stoll C, Micke O, Buentzel J, Muecke R, Senf B. Online survey of patients with breast cancer on complementary and alternative medicine. Breast Care (Basel). 2014;9(1):60–3.CrossRef
8.
Vickers KA, Jolly KB, Greenfield SM. Herbal medicine: women’s views, knowledge and interaction with doctors: a qualitative study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006;6:40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Meijerman I, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Herb-drug interactions in oncology: focus on mechanisms of induction. Oncologist. 2006;11(7):742–52.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Corbin Winslow L, Shapiro H. Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1176–81.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Schofield P, Diggens J, Charleson C, Marigliani R, Jefford M. Effectively discussing complementary and alternative medicine in a conventional oncology setting: communication recommendations for clinicians. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(2):143–51.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ong LM, Visser MR, Lammes FB, de Haes JC. Doctor-patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;41(2):145–56.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the “Consultation and Relational Empathy” (CARE) measure at the example of cancer patients. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58(1):5–15.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Nicolai J, Demmel R, Hagen J. Rating scales for the assessment of empathic communication in medical interview (REM): scale development, reliability, and validity. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2007;14(4):367–75.CrossRef
16.
Kriz D, Schmidt J, Nubling R. The satisfaction of relatives with service delivery of nursing homes for the elderly. Development of the screening-questionnaire ZUF-A-7. Pflege. 2006;19(2):88–96.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. 3rd ed. Bern: Hans Huber; 2010.
18.
Schuber C. Video analysis of practice and the practice of video analysis. Secting field and focus in videography. In: Knoblauch H, Schnettler B, Raab J, Soeffner H-G, editors. Video analysis: methodology and methods. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang; 2006. p. 115–26.
19.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Sadeghi R, Sedaghat MM, Sha Ahmadi F. Comparison of the effect of lecture and blended teaching methods on students’ learning and satisfaction. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2014;2(4):146–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Ferber J, Schneider G, Havlik L, Heuft G, Friederichs H, Schrewe FB, Schulz-Steinel A, Burgmer M. [In Process Citation]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2014;60(4):310–323
22.
Barth J, Lannen P. Efficacy of communication skills training courses in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1030–40.CrossRefPubMed
23.
de Hoop E, Teerenstra S, van Gaal BG, Moerbeek M, Borm GF. The “best balance” allocation led to optimal balance in cluster-controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):132–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A consultation training program for physicians for communication about complementary medicine with breast cancer patients: a prospective, multi-center, cluster-randomized, mixed-method pilot study
Authors
Susanne Blödt
Nadine Mittring
Lena Schützler
Felix Fischer
Christine Holmberg
Markus Horneber
Adele Stapf
Claudia M. Witt
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2884-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Cancer 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Saikosaponin d induces cell death through caspase-3-dependent, caspase-3-independent and mitochondrial pathways in mammalian hepatic stellate cells

Research article

Survival and prognostic factors in patients with stable and unstable spinal bone metastases from solid tumors: a retrospective analysis of 915 cases

Research article

Temporal trends in the risk of developing multiple primary cancers: a systematic review

Research article

Aberrant KDM5B expression promotes aggressive breast cancer through MALAT1 overexpression and downregulation of hsa-miR-448

Research article

Bevacizumab for metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer: a reflection of community based practice

Research article

Epicure: a European epidemiological study of patients with an advanced or metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) having progressed to a platinum-based chemotherapy
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits