Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey

Jeremy Y. Ng; Jassimar Kochhar; Holger Cramer

doi:10.1007/s00520-024-08785-9

Back

Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey

Jeremy Y. Ng, Jassimar Kochhar and Holger Cramer

Supportive care in cancer, Vol.32(9), 615

28/08/2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08785-9

Appears in Recent National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine Publications

Files and links (2)

pdf

Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey1.43 MBDownload View

Published (Version of record)CC BY V4.0, Open Access

url

Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional surveyView

Published (Version of record)CC BY V4.0, Open

Metrics

1 Record Views

See more details

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine

Integrative medicine

Oncology

Perceptions

Cancer

Background Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has become an increasingly popular supportive therapy option for patients with cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate how researchers and clinicians in the oncology field perceive CAIM. Methods We conducted an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey for researchers and clinicians who have published their work in oncology journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. The link to the survey was sent to 47, 991 researchers and clinicians whose contact information was extracted from their publications. The survey included various multiple-choice questions, and one open-ended question at the end to allow for any additional comments. Results 751 respondents completed the survey, and they mostly identified themselves as researchers (n = 329, 45.13%), or as both researchers and clinicians (n = 332, 45.45%) in the field of oncology. Over half of the respondents perceive mind–body therapies (n = 354, 54.97%) to be the most promising CAIM category with regards to the prevention, treatment, and/or management of diseases related to oncology, and many respondents agreed that most CAIM therapies are safe (n = 218, 37.39%), and that clinicians should receive training on CAIM therapies via formal (n = 225, 38.59%) and supplemental education (n = 290, 49.83%). However, many respondents were unsure when asked if most CAIM therapies are effective (n = 202, 34.77%). Conclusions The findings from this study demonstrated great current interest in the use of CAIM in oncology. This information can serve as a foundation for conducting additional research and creating customized educational materials for researchers and clinicians in oncology.

Details

Title: Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey
Creators: Jeremy Y. Ng - University Hospital Tübingen (Tübingen, Germany)
Jassimar Kochhar - University Hospital Tübingen (Tübingen, Germany)
Holger Cramer - University Hospital Tübingen (Tübingen, Germany)
Publication Details: Supportive care in cancer, Vol.32(9), 615
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Grant note: Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (8868)
Identifiers: 991013217413502368
Academic Unit: National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine
Language: English
Resource Type: Journal article

Oncology researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey

Files and links (2)

Metrics

Abstract

Details

Southern Cross University Social media