Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study
Background: Making the decision to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer treatment is difficult in light of the limited available evidence for these treatments. It is unclear how patients use evidence to make these decisions. Objectives: (1) Describe the type of information abo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Integrative cancer therapies 2007-12, Vol.6 (4), p.345-353 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 353 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 345 |
| container_title | Integrative cancer therapies |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Verhoef, Marja J. Mulkins, Andrea Carlson, Linda E. Hilsden, Robert J. Kania, Anna |
| description | Background:
Making the decision to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer treatment is difficult in light of the limited available evidence for these treatments. It is unclear how patients use evidence to make these decisions. Objectives: (1) Describe the type of information about CAM that cancer patients use in their decision making; (2) understand why certain types of information about CAM are accepted as evidence by cancer patients; and (3) explore the role of scientific evidence in treatment decision making. Methods: A qualitative study design using in-depth semistructured interviews with cancer patients attending 4 conventional and integrative health care institutions in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, was used. Results: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. Patients sought CAM information from a range of sources, including the Internet, health care providers, friends, relatives, and newspapers. Many expressed frustration about the overwhelming amount of available information and found it difficult to identify reliable information. Information was described as reliable if it supported them in arriving at a decision about CAM. Types of information participants identified included anecdotes, expert opinion, gut feeling, popular literature, scientific evidence, testimonials, advertising and trial and error. Profound differences were found between new CAM users, experienced CAM users, and users with late-stage cancer in type of information sought, the role of scientific evidence in decision making, and overall information needs. Conclusion: Although this was a relatively small qualitative study, the results suggest that (1) many patients do not value scientific evidence as highly as conventional providers and (2) it is important for clinicians and other information providers to be aware of the different types of information that patients seek out and access when making choices and decisions regarding CAM treatments and why they seek out these sources. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1534735407309482 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_AFRWT</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69011214</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A171941224</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_1534735407309482</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A171941224</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9e270dafa7fa16acba0ba475e9b439396d0fc78c9969fde72c32e05910e1bc783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpyebr3lPRqT051ciyZfW2LGkSCKT5gtyMLI92FWxpa9mF_feR2YVAIeggzbzPO4xmCPkK7AJAyp9Q5ELmhWAyZ0pU_BM5hqLgWamKl8_zOxfZrC_ISYyvjHFgZXFEFlAxUVUVPybNMkaM0fk1HTdIH0KHNFh6-c-16A1S5-kfPTr0Y_yRsrqbUhT8zKxCv-2wT5IedvRpg4PeOoy_6JLeT7pz444-jlO7OyNfrO4inh_uU_L8-_JpdZ3d3l3drJa3mUmdj5lCLlmrrZZWQ6lNo1mjhSxQNSJXuSpbZo2sjFKlsi1KbnKOrFDAEJok5Kfk-77udgh_J4xj3btosOu0xzDFulQMgINI4MUeXOsOa-dtGAdt0mmxdyZ4tC7llyBBCeB8NrC9wQwhxgFtvR1cn35dA6vnRdT_LyJZvh2amZoe23fDYfIJyPZA1GusX8M0-DScjwu-AYw-kAk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69011214</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study</title><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><creator>Verhoef, Marja J. ; Mulkins, Andrea ; Carlson, Linda E. ; Hilsden, Robert J. ; Kania, Anna</creator><creatorcontrib>Verhoef, Marja J. ; Mulkins, Andrea ; Carlson, Linda E. ; Hilsden, Robert J. ; Kania, Anna</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Making the decision to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer treatment is difficult in light of the limited available evidence for these treatments. It is unclear how patients use evidence to make these decisions. Objectives: (1) Describe the type of information about CAM that cancer patients use in their decision making; (2) understand why certain types of information about CAM are accepted as evidence by cancer patients; and (3) explore the role of scientific evidence in treatment decision making. Methods: A qualitative study design using in-depth semistructured interviews with cancer patients attending 4 conventional and integrative health care institutions in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, was used. Results: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. Patients sought CAM information from a range of sources, including the Internet, health care providers, friends, relatives, and newspapers. Many expressed frustration about the overwhelming amount of available information and found it difficult to identify reliable information. Information was described as reliable if it supported them in arriving at a decision about CAM. Types of information participants identified included anecdotes, expert opinion, gut feeling, popular literature, scientific evidence, testimonials, advertising and trial and error. Profound differences were found between new CAM users, experienced CAM users, and users with late-stage cancer in type of information sought, the role of scientific evidence in decision making, and overall information needs. Conclusion: Although this was a relatively small qualitative study, the results suggest that (1) many patients do not value scientific evidence as highly as conventional providers and (2) it is important for clinicians and other information providers to be aware of the different types of information that patients seek out and access when making choices and decisions regarding CAM treatments and why they seek out these sources.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1534-7354</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-695X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1534735407309482</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18048882</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Alternative medicine ; Cancer ; Care and treatment ; Complementary Therapies - psychology ; Complementary Therapies - utilization ; Decision Making ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Female ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Humans ; Interviews as Topic ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Patient Education as Topic ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients - psychology ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Quality of Life</subject><ispartof>Integrative cancer therapies, 2007-12, Vol.6 (4), p.345-353</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9e270dafa7fa16acba0ba475e9b439396d0fc78c9969fde72c32e05910e1bc783</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9e270dafa7fa16acba0ba475e9b439396d0fc78c9969fde72c32e05910e1bc783</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735407309482$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1534735407309482$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,21947,27832,27903,27904,44924,45312</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1534735407309482?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider$$EView_record_in_SAGE_Publications$$FView_record_in_$$GSAGE_Publications</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048882$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Verhoef, Marja J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulkins, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Linda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilsden, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kania, Anna</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study</title><title>Integrative cancer therapies</title><addtitle>Integr Cancer Ther</addtitle><description>Background:
Making the decision to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer treatment is difficult in light of the limited available evidence for these treatments. It is unclear how patients use evidence to make these decisions. Objectives: (1) Describe the type of information about CAM that cancer patients use in their decision making; (2) understand why certain types of information about CAM are accepted as evidence by cancer patients; and (3) explore the role of scientific evidence in treatment decision making. Methods: A qualitative study design using in-depth semistructured interviews with cancer patients attending 4 conventional and integrative health care institutions in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, was used. Results: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. Patients sought CAM information from a range of sources, including the Internet, health care providers, friends, relatives, and newspapers. Many expressed frustration about the overwhelming amount of available information and found it difficult to identify reliable information. Information was described as reliable if it supported them in arriving at a decision about CAM. Types of information participants identified included anecdotes, expert opinion, gut feeling, popular literature, scientific evidence, testimonials, advertising and trial and error. Profound differences were found between new CAM users, experienced CAM users, and users with late-stage cancer in type of information sought, the role of scientific evidence in decision making, and overall information needs. Conclusion: Although this was a relatively small qualitative study, the results suggest that (1) many patients do not value scientific evidence as highly as conventional providers and (2) it is important for clinicians and other information providers to be aware of the different types of information that patients seek out and access when making choices and decisions regarding CAM treatments and why they seek out these sources.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Alternative medicine</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Complementary Therapies - psychology</subject><subject>Complementary Therapies - utilization</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients - psychology</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><issn>1534-7354</issn><issn>1552-695X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1r3DAQhkVpyebr3lPRqT051ciyZfW2LGkSCKT5gtyMLI92FWxpa9mF_feR2YVAIeggzbzPO4xmCPkK7AJAyp9Q5ELmhWAyZ0pU_BM5hqLgWamKl8_zOxfZrC_ISYyvjHFgZXFEFlAxUVUVPybNMkaM0fk1HTdIH0KHNFh6-c-16A1S5-kfPTr0Y_yRsrqbUhT8zKxCv-2wT5IedvRpg4PeOoy_6JLeT7pz444-jlO7OyNfrO4inh_uU_L8-_JpdZ3d3l3drJa3mUmdj5lCLlmrrZZWQ6lNo1mjhSxQNSJXuSpbZo2sjFKlsi1KbnKOrFDAEJok5Kfk-77udgh_J4xj3btosOu0xzDFulQMgINI4MUeXOsOa-dtGAdt0mmxdyZ4tC7llyBBCeB8NrC9wQwhxgFtvR1cn35dA6vnRdT_LyJZvh2amZoe23fDYfIJyPZA1GusX8M0-DScjwu-AYw-kAk</recordid><startdate>200712</startdate><enddate>200712</enddate><creator>Verhoef, Marja J.</creator><creator>Mulkins, Andrea</creator><creator>Carlson, Linda E.</creator><creator>Hilsden, Robert J.</creator><creator>Kania, Anna</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200712</creationdate><title>Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study</title><author>Verhoef, Marja J. ; Mulkins, Andrea ; Carlson, Linda E. ; Hilsden, Robert J. ; Kania, Anna</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-9e270dafa7fa16acba0ba475e9b439396d0fc78c9969fde72c32e05910e1bc783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Alternative medicine</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Complementary Therapies - psychology</topic><topic>Complementary Therapies - utilization</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients - psychology</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Verhoef, Marja J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulkins, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Linda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hilsden, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kania, Anna</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Integrative cancer therapies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Verhoef, Marja J.</au><au>Mulkins, Andrea</au><au>Carlson, Linda E.</au><au>Hilsden, Robert J.</au><au>Kania, Anna</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study</atitle><jtitle>Integrative cancer therapies</jtitle><addtitle>Integr Cancer Ther</addtitle><date>2007-12</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>345</spage><epage>353</epage><pages>345-353</pages><issn>1534-7354</issn><eissn>1552-695X</eissn><abstract>Background:
Making the decision to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer treatment is difficult in light of the limited available evidence for these treatments. It is unclear how patients use evidence to make these decisions. Objectives: (1) Describe the type of information about CAM that cancer patients use in their decision making; (2) understand why certain types of information about CAM are accepted as evidence by cancer patients; and (3) explore the role of scientific evidence in treatment decision making. Methods: A qualitative study design using in-depth semistructured interviews with cancer patients attending 4 conventional and integrative health care institutions in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, was used. Results: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. Patients sought CAM information from a range of sources, including the Internet, health care providers, friends, relatives, and newspapers. Many expressed frustration about the overwhelming amount of available information and found it difficult to identify reliable information. Information was described as reliable if it supported them in arriving at a decision about CAM. Types of information participants identified included anecdotes, expert opinion, gut feeling, popular literature, scientific evidence, testimonials, advertising and trial and error. Profound differences were found between new CAM users, experienced CAM users, and users with late-stage cancer in type of information sought, the role of scientific evidence in decision making, and overall information needs. Conclusion: Although this was a relatively small qualitative study, the results suggest that (1) many patients do not value scientific evidence as highly as conventional providers and (2) it is important for clinicians and other information providers to be aware of the different types of information that patients seek out and access when making choices and decisions regarding CAM treatments and why they seek out these sources.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>18048882</pmid><doi>10.1177/1534735407309482</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| identifier | ISSN: 1534-7354 |
| ispartof | Integrative cancer therapies, 2007-12, Vol.6 (4), p.345-353 |
| issn | 1534-7354 1552-695X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69011214 |
| source | Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024 |
| subjects | Adult Aged Alternative medicine Cancer Care and treatment Complementary Therapies - psychology Complementary Therapies - utilization Decision Making Evidence-Based Medicine Female Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Humans Interviews as Topic Male Middle Aged Neoplasms - therapy Patient Education as Topic Patient Satisfaction Patients - psychology Physician-Patient Relations Quality of Life |
| title | Assessing the Role of Evidence in Patients' Evaluation of Complementary Therapies: A Quality Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T15%3A46%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_AFRWT&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20the%20Role%20of%20Evidence%20in%20Patients'%20Evaluation%20of%20Complementary%20Therapies:%20A%20Quality%20Study&rft.jtitle=Integrative%20cancer%20therapies&rft.au=Verhoef,%20Marja%20J.&rft.date=2007-12&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=345&rft.epage=353&rft.pages=345-353&rft.issn=1534-7354&rft.eissn=1552-695X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1534735407309482&rft_dat=%3Cgale_AFRWT%3EA171941224%3C/gale_AFRWT%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69011214&rft_id=info:pmid/18048882&rft_galeid=A171941224&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1534735407309482&rfr_iscdi=true |