In general, outcome data on second opinion are divergent and scarce. Yet, with patients' demand for second opinion and influence of second opinion on treatment decisions, a structured, high quality and transparent second-opinion program seems mandatory. Such a program may support patient-physician communication and improve the flow of information, as well as decision-making. Its evaluation should be independent from the provider of the second opinion.

Background: The internet is an easy and always accessible source of information for cancer patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the information provided on German websites. Material and Methods: We developed an instrument based on criteria for patient information from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, the Agency for Quality in Medicine, HONcode, DISCERN, and the afgis. We simulated a patient's search and derived the websites for evaluation. We analyzed the visibility of each website and evaluated the websites using the developed instrument. Results: We analyzed 77 websites. The highest visibility index was shown by 4 profit websites. Websites from professional societies and self-help groups have low rankings. Concerning quality, websites from non-profit providers and self-help groups are on top. Websites with a profit interest have the lowest average score. Conclusions: A discrepancy exists between the visibility and the quality of the analyzed websites. With the internet becoming an important source of information on cancer treatments for patients, this may lead to false information and wrong decisions. We provide a list of suggestions as to how this risk may be reduced by complementary information from the physician and from trustworthy websites.

Significant physiological reactions were measured after simulation with aroma oils in all three groups in this study. Healthy probands showed different reactions than palliative patients irrespective to their conscious state.

Background: In recent years, the Internet has become an important source of information for cancer patients. Various cancer diets that are publicized on the Web promise significant benefits. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of online patient information about cancer diets. Materials and Methods: A patient's search for ‘cancer diets' on German websites was simulated using the search engine Google. The websites were evaluated utilizing a standardized instrument with formal and content aspects. Results: An analysis of 60 websites revealed that websites from nonprofit associations as well as self-help groups offer the best content and formal ranking. Websites whose owners aim to make a profit, practices that offer cancer diet therapies, and newspapers received the poorest quality score. The majority of content provided on the Web gets published by profit-oriented content groups. Conclusion: The divergence between profit-driven websites offering low-quality content and the few trustworthy websites on cancer diets is enormous. The information given online about cancer diets may turn out to be a hazardous pitfall. In order to present evidence-based information about cancer diets, online information should be replenished to create a more accurate picture and give higher visibility to the right information.

Patients' and relatives' desire for an individualized, comprehensive counseling with high expertise provided by one person points to the limits of resources of the health system. The importance of additional information material will rise accordingly. This material should be tailored to the needs of diverse patient groups.

Seeking a second opinion may help cancer patients in coping with the disease. As data on benefits are missing, other strategies, such as qualified first opinion and a sound physician-patient communication, may be advisable.

Oncology is a rapidly developing field with a growing number of publications every year. The main goal of this survey was to learn more about the information needs of oncologists and general practitioners. Data were collected using a standardised questionnaire developed in collaboration with the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft) and the German Association of General Practitioners (Deutscher Hausärzteverband). A total of 495 questionnaires could be evaluated. Medical congresses were the preferred source of information for all participants. General practitioners preferred textbooks, while oncologists preferred journals and the Internet (all p < .001). Reasons for a lack of confidence during patient consultation were lack of time (60% of participants), lack of knowledge (61% of general practitioners and 26% of oncologists) and lack of data (>50%). Oncologists felt more confident in searching scientific databases than general practitioners did. Both groups required rapid access to transparent information. For general practitioners, reviews and comments by experts helped to put new information in the context of cancer treatment. Oncologists and general practitioners showed significantly different information needs and different ways to access specific information. In order to better integrate general practitioners while simultaneously serving the needs of oncologists, a database that is up to date, rapidly accessible and does not incur high costs would be helpful.

No abstract