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.

Contending Worldviews in the Clinical Encounter: An Empirical Study of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Deliberations in Contemporary Medical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, the authors characterize the different ways patients and clinicians discuss complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during routine cancer care. METHODS: Over a period of two years, the authors audio-recorded clinical interactions between 37 medical oncology clinicians and a sample of 327 oncology patients at an academic cancer center in the Midwest United States. Recordings of conversations that included any discussion of CAM were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Out of 327 conversations, CAM was mentioned and/or discussed in only 31 encounters. Communication dynamics between clinician and patient involve several factors: the condition of the patient and his or her knowledge about and experience with CAM, the clinician's knowledge and values about CAM, perceived assumptions and stereotypes about CAM, and institutional response to the integration of CAM in cancer care. CONCLUSION: Addressing the difficult and sensitive topic of CAM in cancer care requires hearing patients in a manner meaningful to them. In that sense, CAM can serve as an important marker and test case in the march toward shared decision-making and patient-centered communication generally.

Use of Placebo in Supplementation Studies-Vitamin D Research Illustrates an Ethical Quandary.

History has shown that without explicit and enforced guidelines, even well-intentioned researchers can fail to adequately examine the ethical pros and cons of study design choices. One area in which consensus does not yet exist is the use of placebo groups in vitamin supplementation studies. As a prime example, we focus on vitamin D research. We aim to provide an overview of the ethical issues in placebo-controlled studies and guide future discussion about the ethical use of placebo groups. Research in the field of vitamin D shows variation in how placebo groups are used. We outline four types of control groups in use: active-control, placebo-control with restrictions on supplementation, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions, and placebo-control with rescue repletion therapy. The first two types highlight discrete ethical issues: active-control trials limit the ability to detect a difference; placebo-control trials that restrict supplementation potentially place subjects at risk of undue harm. The final two, placebo-control without supplementation restrictions or with rescue repletion therapy, offer potential solutions to these ethical challenges. Building on this, guidelines should be established and enforced on the use of placebo in supplementation studies. Furthermore, the field of vitamin D research has the potential to set an example worthy of emulation.

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 (

Complementary medicine and genetic medicine: polar disciplines or dynamic partners?

For more than a decade, a powerful movement promoting the integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional medicine has evolved. Throughout the same period, there has been a monumental shift in the biologic sciences, and in perspectives on disease, resulting from advances in genetics. It is noteworthy, and perhaps not coincidental, that these "movements" have been occurring in parallel. The simultaneous growth of complementary medicine and genetic medicine may be fueled by a deep interest in the development of "personalized" medicine. There is a prevailing view that the metaphysical visions of these two fields are in conflict. To advance discussion of this question, we describe what we believe are the common philosophies and goals of these apparently disparate fields, and why it would be advantageous for them to work together in the service of the public's health.

Toward an optimal healing environment in pediatric rehabilitation.

Although recent scientific advances have enabled us to minimize disability and improve the quality of life for people with disabilities and their families, cure is still not possible for many rehabilitation patients. This inability to cure renders the field of rehabilitation medicine particularly well-suited to the philosophy of healing. In contrast to curing, which is aimed at removing or reversing a disease process, both rehabilitation and healing are meant to enhance all aspects of well-being, restore integrity to the person, and facilitate the creation of meaning. Pediatric rehabilitation represents the interface of rehabilitation medicine and pediatrics, and is associated with unique characteristics that provide a natural context for exploring the optimal healing environment. This paper describes those characteristics and argues for the systematic integration and evaluation of healing interventions among children with developmental disabilities and their caregivers (parents, health care practitioners, and teachers). The ultimate aim of these interventions would be to improve all levels of the children's functioning in their homes, schools, and community environments by reducing impairment and increasing activity and participation. The paper concludes with a discussion of research priorities and the challenges imposed by different research strategies.