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.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

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.

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 (

Addiction: Current Criticism of the Brain Disease Paradigm.

To deepen understanding of efforts to consider addiction a "brain disease," we review critical appraisals of the disease model in conjunction with responses from in-depth semistructured stakeholder interviews with (1) patients in treatment for addiction and (2) addiction scientists. Sixty-three patients (from five alcohol and/or nicotine treatment centers in the Midwest) and 20 addiction scientists (representing genetic, molecular, behavioral, and epidemiologic research) were asked to describe their understanding of addiction, including whether they considered addiction to be a disease. To examine the NIDA brain disease paradigm, our approach includes a review of current criticism from the literature, enhanced by the voices of key stakeholders. Many argue that framing addiction as a disease will enhance therapeutic outcomes and allay moral stigma. We conclude that it is not necessary, and may be harmful, to frame addiction as a disease.

Motivations for physician-assisted suicide.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain detailed narrative accounts of patients' motivations for pursuing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). DESIGN: Longitudinal case studies. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty individuals discussed 35 cases. Participants were recruited through advocacy organizations that counsel individuals interested in PAS, as well as hospices and grief counselors. SETTING: Participants' homes. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We conducted a content analysis of 159 semistructured interviews with patients and their family members, and family members of deceased patients, to characterize the issues associated with pursuit of PAS. Most patients deliberated about PAS over considerable lengths of time with repeated assessments of the benefits and burdens of their current experience. Most patients were motivated to engage in PAS due to illness-related experiences (e.g., fatigue, functional losses), a loss of their sense of self, and fears about the future. None of the patients were acutely depressed when planning PAS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study engaged in PAS after a deliberative and thoughtful process. These motivating issues point to the importance of a broad approach in responding to a patient's request for PAS. The factors that motivate PAS can serve as an outline of issues to explore with patients about the far-reaching effects of illness, including the quality of the dying experience. The factors also identify challenges for quality palliative care: assessing patients holistically, conducting repeated assessments of patients' concerns over time, and tailoring care accordingly.