The Effects of Complementary Therapies on Patient-Reported Outcomes: An Overview of Recent Systematic Reviews in Oncology.

Many patients with cancer make use of complementary medicine alongside conventional medicine, but clinicians in oncology often lack the knowledge to adequately advise patients on the evidence base for complementary therapies. This study aims to provide an overview of recently published systematic reviews that assess the effects of complementary therapies on patient-reported health outcomes in patients with cancer. Systematic reviews, including a meta-analysis of at least two randomized controlled trials, were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. The methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. One hundred systematic reviews were included. The results suggest that several complementary therapies can improve health outcomes reported by patients with cancer, such as acupuncture to relieve pain, music interventions to reduce anxiety and yoga to improve cancer-related fatigue. The side effects related to complementary therapy use are generally mild. The results remain inconclusive for some intervention-outcome combinations. Many of the included systematic reviews insufficiently assessed the causes and impact of bias in their interpretation of the results. This overview of systematic reviews can support clinicians in counselling their patients on this topic and provide directions for future research and clinical practice guidelines in the field of complementary medicine.

Perspectives and Attitudes of Dutch Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Integration of Complementary Medicine in Oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Almost half of all patients with cancer use complementary medicine (CM) alongside conventional cancer treatment. Further integration of CM into clinical practice could enhance communication and ensure improved coordination between complementary medicine and conventional care. This study assessed the perspectives of healthcare professionals on the current status of integration of CM in oncology, as well as their attitudes and beliefs toward CM. METHODS: A convenience, volunteer sample of healthcare providers and healthcare managers working in oncology in the Netherlands were surveyed, using a self-reporting, anonymous, online questionnaire. The perspectives on the current status of integration and barriers to implementing complementary medicine were characterized in part 1, while part 2 assessed respondents' attitudes and beliefs regarding CM. RESULTS: A total of 209 people completed part 1 of the survey and 159 people completed the entire questionnaire. Two-thirds (68.4%) of the respondents indicated that their organization has implemented complementary medicine in oncology, or envisions implementation, while 49.3% stated they were missing something to implement CM in oncology. About 86.8% of the respondents (completely) agreed that complementary medicine is an important supplement to oncological treatment. Female respondents were more likely to express positive attitudes, as well as respondents whose institutions have implemented CM. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that attention is being paid to the integration of CM into oncology. Overall, the attitudes of respondents toward CM were positive. The main barriers for implementing CM activities were missing knowledge, experience, financial support, and support from management. To improve the ability of healthcare providers to guide patients in their use of complementary medicine, these issues should be delved into in future research.

How is complementary medicine discussed in oncology? Observing real-life communication between clinicians and patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the structure of communication about complementary medicine (CM) between patients with cancer and clinicians during oncology consultations. METHODS: Previously, consultations between 29 clinicians and 80 patients with advanced cancer were recorded in six hospitals in the Netherlands. The present study considers a secondary analysis. References to CM during the consultation were coded using a self-developed observational coding scheme. RESULTS: At least one reference to CM was observed in 35 out of 80 consultations (44 %), with a total of 73 references. In most cases, CM was initially referred to by patients. Clinicians often did not elaborate on the subject of CM. Relevant aspects related to CM (e.g., safety, effectiveness) were infrequently discussed. Both patients and clinicians showed predominantly neutral to positive attitudes towards CM. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients are still the main initiators of discussions about CM and the topic is not consistently discussed in daily oncology practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If exploration of patients' interest in CM or its use became routine in oncology practice, it may relieve patients of the burden of introducing the topic, decrease potential risks of CM use and increase access to evidence-based CM for all patients with cancer.

Safety of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) treatment among children and young adults who suffer from adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is widely used around the world to treat adverse effects derived from cancer treatment among children and young adults. Parents often seek CAM to restore and maintain the child's physical and emotional condition during and after cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were (i) to identify literature that investigates CAM use for treating adverse effects of conventional cancer treatment, (ii) to investigate the safety of the included CAM modalities, and (iii) to evaluate the quality of included studies. METHODS: Five scientific research databases were used to identify observational, quasi-experimental, and qualitative studies from January 1990 to May 2021. Included studies investigated the use of CAM to treat adverse effects of cancer treatment in childhood cancer. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in this review. Ten quasi-experimental, 3 observational studies (longitudinal/prospective), 2 qualitative studies, and 1 study with a quasi-experimental and qualitative arm were identified. Less than half (n = 6; 40%) of the studies included reported adverse effects for the CAM modality being studied. Among the studies that reported adverse effects, they were mostly considered as direct risk, as 13% reported mainly bleeding and bruising upon acupuncture treatment, and dizziness with yoga treatment. All adverse effects were assessed as minor and transient. CAM modalities identified for treating adverse effects of cancer treatment were alternative medical systems, manipulative and body-based therapies, biologically-based therapies, and mind-body therapies. CAM modalities were used to alleviate anxiety, pain, toxicity, prevent trauma, and improve health-related quality of life, functional mobility, and physical activity levels. All studies assessed scored 70% or above according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal for study quality checklists. CONCLUSION: Most of the studies (58.3%) included in this review did not report adverse effects from CAM modalities used to treat adverse effects of cancer treatment in children and young adults. This lack of safety information is of concern because parents need to know whether the modality represents an extra burden or harm to the child. To improve awareness about safety in the field, a universal and uniform reporting system for adverse effects in CAM research is needed.

Huntington's disease influences employment before and during clinical manifestation: A systematic review.

Huntington's disease (HD) is an inherited neurodegenerative disease. People at risk for HD can choose to get predictive testing years before the clinical onset. HD is characterized by motor, cognitive and psychiatric symptoms and has a mean age at onset between 30 and 50 years, an age at which people are usually still working. This systematic review focuses on summarizing which disease-specific characteristics influence employment and working capacity in HD. Twenty-three studies were identified and showed that while employment and working capacity in HD are negatively influenced by cognitive decline and motor impairments, apathy already plays a role in the prodromal stage. Moreover, the influence of HD transcends the clinical manifestation of the disease, as some people at risk are already experiencing the impact of HD on employment through fear of or actual genetic discrimination. Employment and working capacity are not influenced by predictive testing for HD in and of itself.

Towards an open and effective dialogue on complementary medicine in oncology: protocol of patient participatory study 'COMMON'.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately half of patients with cancer use some form of complementary medicine alongside conventional cancer treatment. The topic of complementary medicine often remains undiscussed in consultations between patients with cancer and their healthcare providers. This results in increased risks for adverse or interaction effects and decreased access to the benefits of evidence-based complementary medicine for patients with cancer. This paper describes the design of patient participatory study titled 'COMMON' that aims to explore and enhance open and effective communication about complementary medicine in oncology. The study is carried out in collaboration with 12 (former) patients with breast cancer as coresearchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study complies with the six steps of the intervention mapping framework. Three non-academic hospitals recruit participants (patients with cancer, oncology healthcare providers and managers) for interviews about the organisation, experiences and needs regarding complementary medicine. To assess communication about complementary medicine, recorded oncology consultations are analysed. For an overview of evidence-based complementary medicine available to patients with cancer, a review of reviews is conducted on the evidence on cancer patient-reported outcomes of complementary medicine frequently used by patients with cancer, supplemented with an online search and survey among organisations and persons providing complementary medicine to patients with cancer. Together, these steps generate input for the development of a toolbox that supports an open and effective discussion on complementary medicine in oncology. In a pilot study, acceptability and usability of the toolbox are assessed among patients with cancer and oncology healthcare providers. Dissemination of the toolbox is covered by the commitment of stakeholder parties. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen declared the study was exempted from formal approval under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The results will be disseminated through open-access, peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder-reporting and presentations at relevant conferences.