[Complementary and Alternative Medicine Offers of Teaching Practices for General Medicine]. / Komplementär- und alternativmedizinische Angebote von Lehrpraxen für Allgemeinmedizin.

OBJECTIVE: Germany's new medical licensure act has increased the importance of general practice in academic medical education. This study gives an overview of complementary and alternative medicine in general teaching practices in Germany and their adherence to evidence-based criteria which is required in order to qualify as a teaching practice. METHODS: After a systematic search for German teaching practices, we assessed their diagnostic and therapeutic offers via their websites. We calculated the various frequencies of treatments and differentiated between evidence-based complementary medicine and alternative medicine with little to no evidence. RESULTS: Of 4102 practices, more than half offered complementary and/or alternative treatment. Most of those were treatments approved of by the German medical association. Alternative medicine was offered by 18.2% of the practices. CONCLUSION: Collective terms and conflicting evidence complicate the classification of treatments. Teaching practices offering non-evidence-based treatment raise the question whether recruitment of additional teaching practices stands at odds with the quality of medical education. Explicit offers of alternative treatment should disqualify a teaching practice as such. Controversial treatment may be taught academically and during residency with a focus on evidence-based guidelines and communication skills in order to prepare young medical practitioners for talks with their patients about the subject.

Patient activation, self-efficacy and usage of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by many cancer patients by themselves. Therefore, we conducted a survey regarding the association between CAM, self-efficacy, and patient activation in adult cancer patients. A standardized questionnaire, consisted of the ASKU, the PAM 13-D, and a structured questionnaire on CAM usage from our own working group, was distributed to 880 potential participants. Six hundred and thirty-nine (639) patients (male 32.9%, female 63.2%; gynecological cancer 41%, gastrointestinal 19.2%, urogenital 15.6%) took part. 60% of all patients used CAM in the last 3 months (biological 73%, holistic 63%, mind-body methods 62%). Higher self-efficacy was associated with higher interest in CAM (p = 0.03), but not usage of CAM, compared to patients with lower self-efficacy (p = 0.099). Higher patient activation was associated with higher interest in CAM (p = 0.004) and usage of CAM (p = 0.012). Patients with higher activation significantly more often used homeopathy (p = 0.007), prayer (p = 0.002), yoga, etc. (p = 0.032), meditation (p = 0.002), low carb or ketogenic diets (p < 0.001) (but not vegan or other cancer diets). Higher patient activation is associated with higher usage of CAM. Focusing on patient activation as a goal in patient-physician relationship will help patients to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and to actively participate in the whole treatment process.