A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Absent and Discordant Electronic Health Record Documentation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Care.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but the quality of CAM documentation in their electronic health records (EHRs) is unknown. The authors aimed to describe (i) the prevalence and types of CAM used after cancer diagnosis and the influence of oncologists on CAM use, as per patients' self-report, and (ii) the prevalence of CAM documentation in the EHR and its consistency with self-reported usage. DESIGN: Patient and provider surveys and chart review. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Medical oncology practices at one institution. SUBJECTS: Patients with cancer at oncologist visits. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient self-reported rate of 3-month postvisit CAM use; provider EHR documentation of CAM use or discussion and its concordance with patient self-report. RESULTS: Among 327 patients enrolled, 248 responded to the 3-month postvisit survey. Of these, 158 reported CAM use after diagnosis (63.7%). CAM users were younger (p < 0.001) and had a higher percentage of women (p = 0.03) than nonusers. Modalities most commonly used were supplements (62.6%), special diets (38.6%), chiropractor (28.4%), and massage (28.4%). CAM was used to improve well-being (68.7%), manage adverse effects (35.5%), and fight cancer (22.9%). Oncologists suggested CAM in 22.5% of instances of use. CAM use/discussion was documented for 58.2% of self-reported CAM users. Of the documented modalities, EHR and self-report were concordant for only 8.2%. CAM documentation was associated with physician provider (p = 0.03), older patients (p = 0.01), and treatment with radiation (p = 0.03) or surgery (p = 0.001). After adjusting for other factors, patients with breast cancer or "other" tumor category were four times more likely than patients with gastrointestinal cancer to have CAM use documentation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.41 [1.48-13.10]; 3.76 [1.42-9.99], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with cancer use CAM after diagnosis, yet EHR documentation is complete for very few. Oncologists should inquire about, document, and discuss CAM benefits and harm or refer patients to CAM specialists.

Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. METHODS: As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items-before looking at participant responses-according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. RESULTS: The themes we found, "Two Systems, Two Worlds," "Not My Job," and "Seeing is Believing," highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians' limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people's efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of-if not at odds with-healthcare.

Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of CAM Discussions and Practices in the Management of Pain in Oncology.

CONTEXT: Treatment of pain in cancer is a clinical priority. Many cancer patients seek and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the role CAM plays in oncology, clinicians' approaches to pain management and its alignment with patient preference and self-care. METHODS: We used quantitative criteria to identify patients with high, self-reported pain and reduced quality of life. For these patients, we merged quantitative and qualitative data from encounter audio recordings, patient surveys, and the medical record. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients (72% women, average age 60) experiencing significantly symptomatic pain at enrollment. Merged themes were 1) Restricted and defined roles: Oncology clinicians suggested and documented cancer-specific approaches to pain management. Patients often (17, 53%) used CAM but rarely desired to discuss it in their encounters. 2) Proactive patients in setting of neutrality: Pain management strategies were considered in 22 instances. CAM was mentioned in 4 (18%) of these discussions but only after patient initiation. Clinicians took a neutral stance. 3) Missed opportunities for person-centered CAM discussions and management: Most (88%) patients were receiving conventional pain medications at enrollment or had them added or escalated during follow-up. Some patients in pain expressed preferences for avoiding opioids. One patient reported wishing CAM would have been discussed after an encounter in which it was not. CONCLUSION: Bringing CAM discussions into the oncology encounter may facilitate a stronger patient-clinician partnership and a more open and safe understanding of pain-related CAM use.