Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Questionnaire of evaluation of satisfaction and impact of the integrative oncology activities of the Tuscan Regional Health Service addressed to oncologists and health professionals of oncology departments.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rossi Elio, Di Stefano Mariella, Conti Tommaso, Guido Carmelo Pasquale, Martella Francesca, Limatola Vittorio, Angiolini Catia, Petrella Maria Cristina, Cracolici Franco, Signorini Alessandra, Barletta Maria Teresa, Roncella Manuela, De Simone Luigi, Belvedere Katia, Gusinu Roberto, Dei Simona
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This cross-sectional survey aimed to assess the impact of integrative oncology services within the public Tuscan Health System (THS), by evaluating the perspectives of the healthcare professionals involved, with particular attention to opportunities and potential challenges.
METHODS: The Tuscan Regional Working Group 'Integration of Complementary Medicine in the Regional Oncology Network' approved a 15-item questionnaire (14 multiple-choice and one open-ended question) addressed to oncologists and healthcare professionals working in oncology departments. The survey was administered anonymously via Google Forms in November 2024, and data collection concluded in December 2024.
RESULTS: Among 176 respondents, the majority were medical oncologists (39.2%), followed by nurses (33%), psycho-oncologists (4.5%), and other professionals. The impact of integrative oncology services on cancer patients was evaluated as follows: useful (32.4%), very useful (29.5%), fair (23.3%), poor (11.4%), and irrelevant (3.4%). Regarding the frequency with which respondents recommend that patients visit public integrative oncology clinics, 29% reported "sometimes", 22.2% "rarely", 15.9% "fairly often", 15.3% "often", 9.1% "very often", and 8.5% "never". Notably, 47.7% of oncologists reported recommending CIM to cancer patients. The most frequently recommended interventions were acupuncture (51%), nutritional counselling (27%) and integrative medicine (11%), followed by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) techniques, energy-based exercises, homeopathy, and others.
CONCLUSIONS: The integration of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) into oncology appears feasible. Shared clinical practice and open dialogue may help to reduce mutual prejudices and institutional barriers, ultimately benefiting patients with cancer. Further studies are warranted to better assess the clinical impact and generalizability of integrative oncology.
METHODS: The Tuscan Regional Working Group 'Integration of Complementary Medicine in the Regional Oncology Network' approved a 15-item questionnaire (14 multiple-choice and one open-ended question) addressed to oncologists and healthcare professionals working in oncology departments. The survey was administered anonymously via Google Forms in November 2024, and data collection concluded in December 2024.
RESULTS: Among 176 respondents, the majority were medical oncologists (39.2%), followed by nurses (33%), psycho-oncologists (4.5%), and other professionals. The impact of integrative oncology services on cancer patients was evaluated as follows: useful (32.4%), very useful (29.5%), fair (23.3%), poor (11.4%), and irrelevant (3.4%). Regarding the frequency with which respondents recommend that patients visit public integrative oncology clinics, 29% reported "sometimes", 22.2% "rarely", 15.9% "fairly often", 15.3% "often", 9.1% "very often", and 8.5% "never". Notably, 47.7% of oncologists reported recommending CIM to cancer patients. The most frequently recommended interventions were acupuncture (51%), nutritional counselling (27%) and integrative medicine (11%), followed by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) techniques, energy-based exercises, homeopathy, and others.
CONCLUSIONS: The integration of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) into oncology appears feasible. Shared clinical practice and open dialogue may help to reduce mutual prejudices and institutional barriers, ultimately benefiting patients with cancer. Further studies are warranted to better assess the clinical impact and generalizability of integrative oncology.