Complementary therapists’ training and cancer care: A multi-site study

Mackereth, Peter; Carter, Ann; Parkin, S F; Stringer, Jacqui; Caress, Ann Louise; Todd, Chris; Long, Andrew; Roberts, DeWayne

doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2009.04.009

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, there are, for example, no standard training requirements for complementary providers working in cancer care or any other health care setting [ 42 ] in the EU [ 5 ]. According to Mackareth et al, complementary providers in England need specific training to learn how to practice safely [ 54 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients’ use of complementary therapies: a literature review

Stub

Quandt

Arcury

et al. 2016

BMC Complement Altern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommunication between different health care providers (conventional and complementary) and cancer patients about their use of complementary therapies affects the health and safety of the patients. The aim of this study was to examine the qualitative research literature on the perception of and communication about the risk of complementary therapies between different health care providers and cancer patients.MethodsSystematic searches in six medical databases covering literature from 2000 to 2015 were performed. The studies were accessed according to the level of evidence and summarized into different risk situations. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the text data, and the codes were defined before and during the data analysis.ResultsTwenty-nine papers were included in the primary analysis and five main themes were identified and discussed. The main risk situations identified were 1. Differences in treatment concepts and philosophical values among complementary and conventional health care providers. 2. Adverse effects from complementary products and herbs due to their contamination/toxicity and interactions with conventional cancer treatment. 3. Health care physicians and oncologists find it difficult to recommend many complementary modalities due to the lack of scientific evidence for their effect. 4. Lack of knowledge and information about complementary and conventional cancer treatments among different health care providers.ConclusionThe risk of consuming herbs and products containing high level of toxins is a considerable threat to patient safety (direct risk). At the same time, the lack of scientific evidence of effect for many complementary therapies and differences in treatment philosophy among complementary and conventional health care providers potentially hinder effective communication about these threats with mutual patients (indirect risk). As such, indirect risk may pose an additional risk to patients who want to combine complementary therapies with conventional treatment in cancer care. Health care providers who care for cancer patients should be aware of these risks.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1326-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients’ use of complementary therapies: a literature review

Stub

Quandt

Arcury

et al. 2016

BMC Complement Altern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite these concerns CAM therapies are available in some NHS institutions where such services are often supported by cancer charities (Gage et al 2009). There is however, a limited availability of specialist training for CAM practitioners working with clients who experience long-term adverse effects of cancer treatments; any that are available tend to cover adaptation techniques in the touch-based therapies such as body massage, reflexology and aromatherapy (Mackereth et al 2009). Furthermore, there are no developments in the Quality and Credit Framework with regard to complementary therapists working in cancer care, because it is considered too 'niche' for a national qualification (Sector Skills for Health 2011).…”

Section: Training and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the objectives of the survey was to establish how many CAM practitioners provided care and support to clients with a diagnosis of cancer in the follow-up after treatment. A similar survey was carried out by Mackereth et al (2009) to a select group of professionals from the North West of England, unfortunately that study did not provide any guidance of the anticipated response rates one might expect from a national survey of this nature. However, Dillman (2007) suggested that approximately 40% will respond positively to a questionnaire on training needs if there is a vested interest in the outcome.…”

Section: Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary therapy support in cancer survivorship: a survey of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners' provision and perception of skills

Samuel

Faithfull

2013

Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviewed the confidence and perceived skills of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners in providing care and symptom management for clients post cancer. An e-survey was mailed to approximately 21, 000 CAM practitioners, targeted at those working with clients who were experiencing consequences of cancer and its treatments. Questions were asked about the main symptoms and concerns of clients, the confidence and current skill levels of practitioners and additional training requirements. Six hundred and twelve practitioners responded to the survey, 507 of whom were working with individuals experiencing the consequences of cancer and its treatments. Forty-five per cent (n = 134) had undertaken training in cancer prior to working with cancer patients, 61% (n = 182) had undertaken courses or study days relative to cancer care in the past two years. The most often treated symptoms or concerns of patients were those of a psychosocial nature, pain management and lymphoedema. CAM practitioners with limited knowledge and training are providing support to cancer survivors, particularly in services where the National Health Service has limited provision. CAM practitioners may fulfil a future role in providing long-term support for cancer survivors; however, in order to properly safeguard patients they are in need of further training and development.

show abstract

“…The educational level to be approved to provide acupuncture differs from courses offered by an acupuncture association (e.g., Cyprus) to 3–5 years of university training (e.g., Hungary) [30, 32]. We know that CAM users favor CAM providers that are governmentally authorized health professionals [43]. However, Sara will probably not know the qualification requirements for a medical doctor to get approval to practice acupuncture, his/her actual training in acupuncture, the reimbursement rights in the actual country or how to make claims if the acupuncture treatment causes harm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Then I went to a hospital abroad”: acknowledging implications of stakeholders’ differing risk understandings related to use of complementary and alternative medicine in European health care contexts

Salamonsen

Wiesener

2019

BMC Complement Altern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a rather novel issue within public healthcare and health policy-making. CAM use in Europe is widespread, patient-initiated, and patient-evaluated, and the regulation across countries has been evaluated as disharmonized. CAM users are left in an uncertain position, and patient safety may be threatened. How “risk” is understood by individuals in health policy-making and clinical encounters involving the use of CAM has not yet been much debated. The aim of this article is to explore and discuss the existence and possible consequences of differing risk understandings among stakeholders maneuvering in the complex landscape of CAM practice and CAM regulation contextualized by European public healthcare systems. Methods Qualitative data were derived from two studies on CAM in European healthcare contexts. Findings from the EU project CAMbrella on legislation and regulation of CAM were mixed with data from an interview study exploring risk understandings, communication, and decision-making among Scandinavian CAM users and their doctors. In a secondary content analysis, we constructed the case Sara as a typology to demonstrate important findings with regard to risk understandings and patient safety involving European citizens’ use of CAM in differing contexts. Results By combining and comparing individual and structural perspectives on risk and CAM use, we revealed underexplored gaps in risk understandings among individuals involved in European CAM regulation and legislation, and between CAM users and their medical doctors. This may cause health risks and uncertainties associated with CAM use and regulation. It may also negatively influence doctor-CAM user communication and CAM users’ trust in and use of public healthcare. Conclusion Acknowledging implications of stakeholders’ differing risk understandings related to CAM use and regulation may positively influence patient safety in European healthcare. Definitions of the concept of risk should include the factors uncertainty and subjectivity to grasp the full picture of possible risks associated with the use of CAM. To transform the findings of this study into practical settings, we introduce sets of questions relevant to operationalize the important question “What is risk?” in health policy-making, clinical encounters and risk research involving European patients’ use of CAM.

show abstract

Complementary therapists’ training and cancer care: A multi-site study

Abstract: Findings highlight the need for standardisation of training for complementary therapy provision in cancer care and statutory review of continuing professional development within this emerging field.

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients’ use of complementary therapies: a literature review

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients’ use of complementary therapies: a literature review

Complementary therapy support in cancer survivorship: a survey of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners' provision and perception of skills

“Then I went to a hospital abroad”: acknowledging implications of stakeholders’ differing risk understandings related to use of complementary and alternative medicine in European health care contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About