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.

Communication predictors and consequences of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) discussions in oncology visits.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but do not routinely talk about it with their clinicians. This study describes CAM discussions in oncology visits, the communication patterns that facilitate these discussions and their association with visit satisfaction. METHODS: 327 patients (58% female; average age 61) and 37 clinicians were recorded during an oncology visit and completed post-visit questionnaires. All CAM discussions were tagged and the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) was used to code visit dialogue. RESULTS: CAM was discussed in 36 of 327 visits; discussions were brief (