Objective:The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of an 8-week web-based, mindfulness stress management program (WSM) in a corporate call center and added benefit of group support.Methods:One hundred sixty-one participants were randomized to WSM, WSM with group support, WSM with group and expert clinical support, or wait-list control. Perceived stress, burnout, emotional and psychological well-being, mindfulness, and productivity were measured at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and 1 year.Results:Online usage was low with participants favoring CD use and group practice. All active groups demonstrated significant reductions in perceived stress and increases in emotional and psychological well-being compared with control. Group support improved participation, engagement, and outcomes.Conclusion:A self-directed mindfulness program with group practice and support can provide an affordable, effective, and scalable workplace stress management solution. Engagement may also benefit from combining web-based and traditional CD delivery.

Background The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms. Method An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and four clinical trial registries (one Chinese) were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating single or adjunct zinc against placebo or active controls, for prevention and/or treatment of SARS-CoV-2, other coronaviruses or related infections. RR constraints included not searching bibliographies or contacting authors, single reviewers with calibration and second reviewer checking, meta-analyses and quality appraisal of critical and study primary outcomes only and reporting results as they became available. Results 118 publications of 1,627 records met the inclusion criteria (35 Chinese and 83 English publications), 32 for prevention, 78 for treatment and 8 for both. Four RCTs specific to SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing; two are investigating zinc for prevention and two for treatment. As of 7 July 2020, no results were available. A wide range of zinc forms, including nasal spray/gel, lozenges, liquid, tablets and intramuscular were investigated. Conclusion Currently, indirect evidence suggests zinc may potentially reduce the risk, duration and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for populations at risk of zinc deficiency including people with chronic disease co-morbidities and older adults. Direct evidence to determine if zinc is effective for either prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is pending. In the interim, assessing zinc status of people with chronic diseases and older adults, as part of a SARS-CoV-2 clinical work-up, is reasonable as both groups have a higher risk of zinc deficiency/insufficiency and poorer outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.

Background and Objectives: People have multi-faceted health care needs and consult a diverse range of health care practitioners (HCP) from both the conventional and complementary medicine healthcare sectors. The effective communication between HCP and with patients are obvious requisites to coordinating multidisciplinary care and shared decision making. Further, miscommunication is a leading cause of patient harm and is associated with reduced patient satisfaction, health literacy, treatment compliance and quality of life. In conventional healthcare settings, the differences in professional hierarchy, training, communication styles and culture are recognised communication barriers. Less is known about interprofessional communication (IPC) that includes traditional and complementary medicine (TCM) HCP. This review aims to summarise the experiences and perceptions of conventional and complementary HCP and identify factors that influence IPC. Methods: A qualitative rapid literature review was conducted. Six databases were searched to identify original research and systematic reviews published since 2009 and in English. Excluded were articles reporting original research outside of Australia that did not include TCM-HCP, already cited in a systematic review, or of low quality with a score of less than three on a critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist. A thematic analysis of included studies was used to identify and explore important and recurring themes. Results: From the conducted searches, 18 articles were included, 11 of which reported data on complementary HCP and seven were literature reviews. Four key themes were identified that impact IPC: medical dominance, clarity of HCP roles, a shared vision, and education and training. Conclusion: IPC within and between conventional and complementary HCP is impacted by interrelated factors. A diverse range of initiatives that facilitate interprofessional learning and collaboration are required to facilitate IPC and help overcome medical dominance and interprofessional cultural divides.

BackgroundIndividuals living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis are increasingly using complementary therapies and medicines (CM) to enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment, manage treatment-related side effects, improve quality-of-life, and promote self-efficacy. In response to the increasing use and demand for CM by cancer patients, interest in the implementation of Integrative Oncology (IO) services that provide CM alongside conventional cancer care in Australia and abroad has developed. The extent that cancer services in Australia are integrating CM is uncertain. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify IO services in Australia and explore barriers and facilitators to IO service provision.MethodsA national, cross-sectional survey of healthcare organisations was conducted in 2016. Organisations in the public and private sectors, including not-for-profit organisations that provided cancer care in hospital or community setting, were included.ResultsA response rate of 93.2% was achieved (n = 275/295). Seventy-one organisations (25.8%) across all states/territories, except the Northern Territory, offered IO albeit in a limited amount by many. Most common IO services included massage, psychological-wellbeing, and movement modalities in hospital outpatient or inpatient settings. There were only a few instances where biological-based complementary medicine (CM) therapies were prescribed. Funding was often mixed, including patient contributions, philanthropy, funding by the organisation, and volunteer practitioners.Of the 204 non-IO providers, 80.9% had never provided any IO service. Overwhelmingly, the most common barrier to IO was a lack of funding, followed by uncertainty about patient demand, choice of services, and establishing such services. Less-common barriers were a lack of evidence, and support from oncologists or management. More funding, education and training, and building the evidence-base for CM were the most commonly suggested solutions.ConclusionIO is increasingly being provided in Australia, although service provision remains limited or non-existent in many areas. Mismatches appear to exist between low IO service provision, CM evidence, and high CM use by cancer patients. Greater strategic planning and policy guidance is indicated to ensure the appropriate provision of, and equitable access to IO services for all Australian cancer survivors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2357-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Interest in integrative oncology (IO) is growing globally. Patients with cancer are actively using traditional complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) as part of their cancer and survivorship care. Published studies from around the world report increasing use of TCIM by people living with cancer. This article summarizes the presentations that took place during a symposium titled, "Integrative Oncology: International Perspectives" at the International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Baltimore, 2018. The purpose of the presentations was to examine whether cancer services across a variety of geographical regions, including Australia, Canada, the United States, and the European Union, were actively responding to cancer survivors' demand for TCIM. The presenters highlighted utilization rates and both facilitators and barriers to the provision of IO services in their respective countries and regions. The audience discussion following the presentations drew out many noteworthy perspectives. Keywordsintegrative oncology, complementary therapy, integrative medicine, supportive cancer care, traditional complementary and integrative medicine, TCIM

A combination of some of the tools short-listed will cover all the necessary outcome items. However, the increase in assessment time will reduce clinical usefulness. Further research is needed to modify or created appropriate outcome measurement tools for use in routine clinical practice.

Background In response to the increasing cancer prevalence and the evolving health service landscape across the public and private health sectors in Australia, this study aimed to map cancer services and identify factors associated with service provision and important service gaps. Methods A prospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted throughout 2016. Extensive search strategies identified Government or privately-owned, hospital or community-based healthcare organisations with dedicated cancer services. One nominated staff member from each organisation answered a purpose specific online/paper questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, standardised rates, and single level and multilevel multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data. Analysis was augmented with a qualitative descriptive analysis of open-ended questions. Results From the 295 eligible organisations with a cancer service in Australia, 93.2% participated in the survey. After adjusting for remoteness, for-profit companies were significantly more likely than Government operated services to provide only one or two types of cancer services (e.g. radiotherapy) in a limited range of settings (e.g. day hospital with no in-patient or home care) ( p < 0.001) and less likely to provide comprehensive cancer services (p < 0.001). After adjusting for ownership and the respondent’s role in the organisation, respondents located in remote regions of Australia were more likely to identify cancer services that are dependent upon specialist medical practitioners as the most important service gaps in their region ( p = 0.003). Despite 76.0% of organisations across Australia offering some type of supportive care or survivorship services, providers identified this group of services as the most pressing service gaps in major cities, rural and remote regions alike (standardised rate: 47.9% (95%CI: 43.6–57.4%); p < .000). This included the need for improved integration, outreach and affordability. Conclusions The broad range of cancer services, settings and ownership identified by this survey highlights the complexity of the Australian healthcare system that cancer survivors must navigate and the challenges of providing comprehensive cancer care particularly in rural and remote regions. Whilst the significant role of supportive care and survivorship services are increasingly being recognised, the findings from this survey support calls for innovative service models and funding mechanisms that expand the focus from preventing and treating cancer to supporting cancer survivors throughout the cancer continuum and promoting the delivery of integrated and equitable cancer care across the public and private sectors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5649-6) contains supplementary material, which is av...

BackgroundThe significant use of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) by cancer survivors is well documented. The aim of this study was to explore cancer survivors’ views on integrating T&CM services with conventional cancer care.MethodA mixed-method study design with an emphasis on qualitative methodology was used to conduct and analyse four focus group interviews and an on-line survey. Purposive sampling recruited 33 cancer survivors and caregivers from Arabic, Vietnamese, Chinese and Anglo-European Australian backgrounds who participated in one of four focus group interviews, and 121 cancer survivors who responded to an on-line survey. The inductive thematic analysis was augmented with a descriptive statistical analysis.ResultsMost participants had used T&CM therapies or consulted T&CM practitioners as an adjuvant during and/or after their initial cancer treatment. Two themes emerged: ‘positive perceptions and experiences’ and ‘barriers and unmet needs’. Participants emphasised that T&CM was not a ‘luxury item’, rather it was considered important for managing side effects and comorbidities, rehabilitation and quality of life. A wide range of complex, interrelated barriers and solutions to IO service provision and access were identified. Structural barriers included inadequate service provision, medical practitioner attitudes, logistical constraints and funding. Personal barriers were influenced by the severity of impairment and disability; attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about T&CM; and available resources (e.g. finances, time, transport). Unmet need and inequitable access was exacerbated by geographical location, ethnicity and ability to pay. There was a mismatch between where participants were accessing T&CM services and their preference for IO service delivery. Participants perceived hospital-based IO services availability to have several benefits, including the T&CM practitioners having more expert knowledge about cancer care, the convenience of co-locating oncology services, and potentially lower out-of-pocket costs.ConclusionPatients’ use, preferences and needs for T&CM services in the oncology setting are important for informing service provision. Inequitable, unmet need reflected the increasing demand and expectation from patients for their oncology teams to be well informed about the benefits, risks and indications for T&CM use, and for the public and private health sectors to formally integrate and fund IO services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2209-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.