Patient education and counseling · 2026
Facilitating patient-professional dialogue about complementary and alternative medicine in routine cancer care: A scoping review of interventions.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание 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.
Vendelsøe Astrid Næraa Høeg, Stub Trine, Jong Miek, Øbro Louise Faurholt, Ryom Knud, Jung Helene, Stie Mette
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of interventions developed to facilitate dialogue about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) between patients with cancer and health care professionals in routine cancer practice.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, nine databases were systematically searched for publications presenting or evaluating interventions that facilitate CAM-related communication in cancer care. Data were extracted on intervention type, target group, delivery format, evaluation methods, reported evaluation results and implementation experiences.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications describing 16 distinct interventions were included. Interventions targeted patients, health care professionals, or both, and were categorized into four main types: educational programs for professionals, educational materials for patients, in-consultation dialogue tools, and online patient resources. Evaluation was frequent but quantitative outcome measures were often limited to short-term, self-developed outcome measures. Potential facilitators to implementation included professionals' positive attitude towards CAM, and tailoring the intervention to the context. Barriers included lack of time and concerns about potential negative consequences of raising the topic.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions aiming to facilitate CAM dialogue in routine cancer care are diverse. When evaluated quantitatively, they were often assessed using non-validated, self-developed outcome measures. More robust research using validated tools is needed to assess impact and inform implementation in clinical practice.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This review highlights several possible approaches to facilitating dialogue about CAM in cancer care. Depending on local needs and resources, strategies such as professional education, communication tools, or patient information materials may be adapted to support open discussion. Future studies should examine how these approaches can be evaluated and implemented in real-world settings.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, nine databases were systematically searched for publications presenting or evaluating interventions that facilitate CAM-related communication in cancer care. Data were extracted on intervention type, target group, delivery format, evaluation methods, reported evaluation results and implementation experiences.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications describing 16 distinct interventions were included. Interventions targeted patients, health care professionals, or both, and were categorized into four main types: educational programs for professionals, educational materials for patients, in-consultation dialogue tools, and online patient resources. Evaluation was frequent but quantitative outcome measures were often limited to short-term, self-developed outcome measures. Potential facilitators to implementation included professionals' positive attitude towards CAM, and tailoring the intervention to the context. Barriers included lack of time and concerns about potential negative consequences of raising the topic.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions aiming to facilitate CAM dialogue in routine cancer care are diverse. When evaluated quantitatively, they were often assessed using non-validated, self-developed outcome measures. More robust research using validated tools is needed to assess impact and inform implementation in clinical practice.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This review highlights several possible approaches to facilitating dialogue about CAM in cancer care. Depending on local needs and resources, strategies such as professional education, communication tools, or patient information materials may be adapted to support open discussion. Future studies should examine how these approaches can be evaluated and implemented in real-world settings.