With regard to patients' perception of health status, CAM use is associated with a better coping with their disease. Most other categories of LS are not affected by CAM use. Patient-oriented information comparing standard therapies with CAM methods should be made widely available, and patients' expectations of CAM use should be discussed between the physician and the patient.

"Because they know what they do" should be the contribution of cancer registration to prevention. The public should be informed about the successes and failures of prevention. In addition, each doctor and each hospital should know the long-term results for its patients despite the complex interdisciplinary health care provision. At the same time, the regional results should be available and contrasted with clinical studies and international standards. An important criterion is also the quality of life of the patients, whose cooperation is more than overdue. According to the possibilities of prevention, six important levels can be differentiated. On each level the outcome should be evaluated on the basis of slightly differing criteria. Primary prevention has the largest incidence-, and thus, mortality-reduction potential, essentially caused by the giving up of smoking. However, the primary prevention of the tumor depends upon what kind of tumor it is, as primary prevention is possible to different extents. Often, secondary prevention is the earliest intervention possible, that is, the early detection of cancer in prognostically favorable stages. However, early detection only offers a chance of cure, albeit a smaller one, for some kinds of tumor. The third prevention level comprises primary care according to the state-of-the-art standards, followed by posttreatment care (disease-free phase) even when the disease is running a fatal course (palliative phase). In the terminal phase, adequate tumor-pain therapy and symptom-oriented measures stand for the sixth prevention level. Even the quality of life of the dying can be optimized. At the beginning of treatment at the latest, the quality of life should also be added to the outcome criteria. In this paper, the individual levels of prevention and possible evaluation criteria for successful prevention, which a modern cancer registration should submit, are discussed and examples given. If the evaluation of the quality of treatment and its significance for health care provision becomes the central tasks of the cancer registers, they will need to be transformed into service centers for hospitals, doctors, and patients.

Results suggest that eating disorder websites do not adequately address diagnostic criteria or treatment options.

No abstract

PurposeTo describe the perceptions of haematological cancer patients about the components of care deemed essential to supporting them to obtain and understand information about their cancer, its treatment and its impact on their life.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with individuals diagnosed with haematological cancer. Eligible patients presenting for a scheduled outpatient appointment were invited to complete a pen-and-paper survey in the clinic waiting room while waiting for their appointment. Those who completed the survey were mailed a second survey approximately 4 weeks later. Participants provided data about their demographic and disease characteristics and perceptions of optimal care for haematological cancer patients.ResultsA total of 170 patients completed both surveys and were included in the analysis. The items endorsed as essential components of care by the highest number of participants were being able to share accurate information about their disease, treatment and ongoing care with their GP/family doctor (49%); being able to obtain up-to-date information specific to their circumstances (43%); being able to obtain information in the amount of detail that they want (34%); being able to call a health care professional at the treatment centre where they are receiving care (34%) and being able to call an experienced health care professional who has knowledge of their disease and its treatment (34%).ConclusionsFurther research is needed to determine ways of meeting the preferences of haematological cancer patients and determining the associated impact on patient outcomes.