In this review article we provide a broad overview of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), including prevalence of use, common therapies used, and reasons for and factors associated with CAM use. CAM is commonly used by those suffering from IBD. Multiple forms of CAM are used to treat IBD, and often patients use multiple CAM therapies and continue to use conventional medical therapies. Patients using CAM report benefits that extend beyond simply improved disease control. Using CAM allows patients to exert a greater degree of control over their disease and its management than they are afforded by conventional medicine. There is limited evidence on the efficacy of CAM therapies in IBD. It is important for physicians caring for those with IBD to be familiar with common forms of CAM and to be able to provide general counseling to their patients about CAM use.

Randomised clinical trials are the preferred method for establishing average intervention effects for groups. Using key methodological elements of these trials, n-of-1 trials provide rigorous evidence of intervention effects for individuals. N-of-1 trials are particularly useful for situations where randomised clinical trials are not always feasible or appropriate, such as for individuals with rare diseases, comorbid conditions, or using concurrent treatments. N-of-1 trials enhance precision when intervention effects are heterogeneous between individuals. Here, we describe an extension to the SPIRIT (standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials) guideline, SPENT (SPIRIT extension for n-of-1 trials), to improve the completeness and transparency of n-of-1 trial protocols. SPENT is also aligned with the CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) extension for n-of-1 trials (CENT). The guideline development group followed the development strategy for reporting guidelines endorsed by the EQUATOR Network. SPENT began with a systematic review for n-of-1 protocol recommendations. After analysis to identify possible SPENT items, a three round Delphi process was implemented, with international participation involving researchers, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. This was followed by in-person meetings and email discussion of the SPENT group to achieve consensus. SPENT has 14 extension items specific to n-of-1 trials, a checklist for n-of-1 trial protocol abstracts, and additional guidance for eight SPIRIT items where trialists could encounter issues specific to n-of-1 trials. This paper describes the rationale and development process, and provides examples and explanations for each SPENT checklist item.

PurposeFor breast cancer (BrCa) survivors, premature menopause can result from conventional cancer treatment. Due to limited treatment options, survivors often turn to complementary therapies (CTs), but struggle to make informed decisions. In this study, we identified BrCa survivors’ CT and general information and decision-making needs related to menopausal symptoms.MethodsThe needs assessment was informed by interpretive descriptive methodology. Focus groups with survivors (n = 22) and interviews with conventional (n = 12) and CT (n = 5) healthcare professionals (HCPs) were conducted at two Canadian urban cancer centers. Thematic, inductive analysis was conducted on the data.ResultsMenopausal symptoms have significant negative impact on BrCa survivors. Close to 70 % of the sample were currently using CTs, including mind-body therapies (45.5 %), natural health products (NHPs) and dietary therapies (31.8 %), and lifestyle interventions (36.4 %). However, BrCa survivors reported inadequate access to information on the safety and efficacy of CT options. Survivors also struggled in their efforts to discuss CT with HCPs, who had limited time and information to support women in their CT decisions. Concise and credible information about CTs was required by BrCa survivors to support them in making informed and safe decisions about using CTs for menopausal symptom management.ConclusionsHigh quality research is needed on the efficacy and safety of CTs in managing menopausal symptoms following BrCa treatment. Decision support strategies, such as patient decision aids (DAs), may help synthesize and translate evidence on CTs and promote shared decision-making between BrCa survivors and HCPs about the role of CTs in coping with menopause following cancer treatment.

This systematic review synthesizes knowledge about the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among advanced cancer patients. EBSCO and Ovid databases were searched using core concepts, including advanced cancer, CAM, integrative medicine, and decision-making. Articles included in the final review were analyzed using narrative synthesis methods, including thematic analysis, concept mapping, and critical reflection on the synthesis process. Results demonstrate that advanced cancer patients who are younger, female, more educated, have longer duration of disease, and have previously used CAM are more likely to use CAM during this stage of illness. Key themes identified include patterns of and reasons for use; and barriers and facilitators to informed CAM decision-making. Knowledge regarding the use of CAM in advanced cancer remains in its nascent stages. Findings suggest a need for more research on understanding the dynamic process of CAM decision-making in the advanced cancer population from the patients' perspective.

No abstract

CSCPs reported using CAM at rates significantly higher than for non-CSCPs. Given the predominance of biological-based therapies and the lack of consultation with oncology HCPs, it is imperative that CAM use be assessed and documented to ensure CSCPs' safety during cancer treatment. Culturally appropriate information and decision support is required to ensure that CSCPs are making safe and informed CAM decisions.

BackgroundTherapeutic massage and bodywork (TMB) practitioners are predominantly trained in programs that are not uniformly standardized, and in variable combinations of therapies. To date no studies have explored this variability in training and how this affects clinical practice.MethodsCombined methods, consisting of a quantitative, population-based survey and qualitative interviews with practitioners trained in multiple therapies, were used to explore the training and practice of TMB practitioners in Alberta, Canada.ResultsOf the 5242 distributed surveys, 791 were returned (15.1%). Practitioners were predominantly female (91.7%), worked in a range of environments, primarily private (44.4%) and home clinics (35.4%), and were not significantly different from other surveyed massage therapist populations. Seventy-seven distinct TMB therapies were identified. Most practitioners were trained in two or more therapies (94.4%), with a median of 8 and range of 40 therapies. Training programs varied widely in number and type of TMB components, training length, or both. Nineteen interviews were conducted. Participants described highly variable training backgrounds, resulting in practitioners learning unique combinations of therapy techniques. All practitioners reported providing individualized patient treatment based on a responsive feedback process throughout practice that they described as being critical to appropriately address the needs of patients. They also felt that research treatment protocols were different from clinical practice because researchers do not usually sufficiently acknowledge the individualized nature of TMB care provision.ConclusionsThe training received, the number of therapies trained in, and the practice descriptors of TMB practitioners are all highly variable. In addition, clinical experience and continuing education may further alter or enhance treatment techniques. Practitioners individualize each patient's treatment through a highly adaptive process. Therefore, treatment provision is likely unique to each practitioner. These results may be of interest to researchers considering similar practice issues in other professions. The use of a combined-methods design effectively captured this complexity of TMB practice. TMB research needs to consider research approaches that can capture or adapt to the individualized nature of practice.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among individuals with cancer, but many choose not to discuss CAM with healthcare providers (HCPs). Moreover, there is variability in the provision of evidence-informed decision making about CAM use. A clinical practice guideline was developed to standardize how oncology HCPs address CAM use as well as to inform how individuals with cancer can be supported in making evidence-informed decisions about CAM. An integrative review of the literature, from inception to December 31st, 2018, was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and AMED databases. Eligible articles included oncology HCPs’ practice related to discussing, assessing, documenting, providing decision support, or offering information about CAM. Two authors independently searched the literature and selected articles were summarised. Recommendations for clinical practice were formulated from the appraised evidence and clinical experiences of the research team. An expert panel reviewed the guideline for usability and appropriateness and recommendations were finalised. The majority of the 30 studies eligible for inclusion were either observational or qualitative, with only three being reviews and three being experimental. From the literature, seven practice recommendations were formulated for oncology HCPs regarding how to address CAM use by individuals with cancer, including communicating, assessing, educating, decision-coaching, documenting, active monitoring, and adverse event reporting. It is imperative for safe and comprehensive care that oncology HCPs address CAM use as part of standard practice. This clinical practice guideline offers directions on how to support evidence-informed decision making about CAM among individuals with cancer.