A survey of multidisciplinary healthcare providers utilizing the KNOWintegrativeoncology.org educational platform.

BACKGROUND: Although the vast majority of cancer patients use natural health products (NHPs), 59% of oncology healthcare providers (HCP) report not receiving any education on NHPs. KNOWintegrativeoncology.org (KNOW) is a web-based educational platform that provides up-to-date evidence on NHPs used in cancer care with a user-friendly interface. KNOW is a database of human studies systematically gathered from MEDLINE and EMBASE. We surveyed HCPs before and after accessing KNOW to identify their information needs regarding NHPs in cancer care, their preferred way to receive information, barriers they face accessing NHP information, and to obtain feedback on the website. METHODS: Recruitment was done through Beaumont Health Systems, the Society for Integrative Oncology, and the Andrew Weil Centre for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona. HCPs who consented completed an initial survey and then a follow-up survey after being given access to KNOW for 4-6 weeks. Participants were required to access KNOW at least three times before completion of the follow-up survey. RESULTS: A total of 65 participants completed the initial survey, with 60% (n = 39) from the conventional medical community, 33% (n = 21) from the integrative medicine community, and 7% (n = 5) from the research community. The majority of participants (82%; n = 53) preferred educational websites to email updates, podcasts/webinars, in-house experts, PubMed searches and smartphone apps. The most common barriers identified to accessing information on NHPs were time, accessibility at point-of-care, and credibility of sources. A high number of participants were lost to follow up, with 18 participants demographically representative of the initial sample of 65 completing the follow-up survey. Half (n = 9) of participants stated accessing the KNOW website changed their clinical practice. Close to 90% (n = 16) reported they would recommend KNOW to a colleague. CONCLUSION: Oncology HCPs reported preferring to use, and already relying on, numerous web-based educational platforms to gather information on NHPs, with time, accessibility, and credibility being common barriers to obtaining information. Our study findings highlight the promise of the KNOW web-based educational platform in reducing barriers to accessing up-to-date information on NHPs in busy cancer care settings.

From Bench to Bedside: Converting Placebo Research into Belief Activation.

Research on the placebo effect contains important elements that can be harnessed to improve clinical care. This paper proposes a new term, "Belief Activation," to describe the deliberate use of placebo effect tools by both patients and clinicians to catalyze healing. Belief Activation includes, but is not limited to, maximizing patient and practitioner expectations, classical and social conditioning, spirituality and prayer/intention, therapeutic relationship, healing environments, and minimizing the nocebo effect. This paper demonstrates ways in which Belief Activation is a form of evidence-based medicine and seeks to translate knowledge from placebo research into medical practice.

Trial of Essiac to ascertain its effect in women with breast cancer (TEA-BC).

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and medical expenditures among women in Canada. Essiac (Resperin Canada Limited, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), a blend of at least four herbs (burdock root [Arctium lappa], Indian rhubarb [Rheum palmatum], sheep sorrel [Rumex acetosella], and the inner bark of slippery elm [Ulmus fulva or U. rubra]), has become one of the more popular herbal remedies for breast-cancer treatment, secondary prevention, improving quality of life, and controlling negative side-effects of conventional breast-cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine the difference in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), as assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Breast Cancer Version, between women who are new Essiac users (since breast cancer diagnosis) and those who have never used Essiac. Secondary endpoints included differences in depression, anxiety, fatigue, rate of adverse events, and prevalence of complications or benefits associated with Essiac during standard breast-cancer treatment. Additionally, we described the pattern of use of Essiac in this cohort of women. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in 510 women, randomly chosen from the Ontario Cancer Tumour Registry, with a diagnosis of primary breast cancer in 2003. RESULTS: With the exception changes in a Physical well-being subscale and a relationship with doctor subscale, Essiac did not have a significant effect on HR-QOL or mood states. Even for Physical well-being and relationship with doctor, Essiac seemed to have a negative effect, with Essiac users doing worse than the non-Essiac users. This might be attributed to the fact that the group of users comprised younger women with more advanced stages of breast cancer, and both of these subgroups of patients have been shown to be at a significantly increased risk for negative mood states and/or a decreased sense of well-being. The women were taking low doses (total daily dose 43.6 +/- 30.8 mL) of Essiac that corresponded to the label directions found on most Essiac products. Friends were the most common source of information, and most women were taking Essiac to boost their immune systems or increase their chances of survival. Only 2 women reported minor adverse events, whereas numerous women reported beneficial effects of Essiac. CONCLUSIONS: Essiac does not appear to improve HR-QOL or mood states. Future studies are needed to determine whether other clinical outcomes, such as cancer reoccurrence, are affected by Essiac.