Search

Background: This study compares attitudes among oncology professionals to whether complementary therapies should be offered in integrated units affiliated with departments of oncology., Material and Methods: In June 2002 a questionnaire on alternative and complementary medicine was distributed among 156 physicians, 414 nurses, 164 radiation therapists and 94 administrative staff members in the five Norwegian university hospitals responsible for cancer treatment. 61% returned the questionnaire., Results: More than half of the physicians (56%) and most of the other health care workers (85-93%) had a positive attitude to departments of integrative medicine. If the service was provided, about half of the physicians expressed the opinion that the cost of treatment should be covered by the patient. By contrast, more than 80% of nurses, clerks and therapeutic radiographers answered that the cost had to be covered by public funding. Most oncology professionals, including the physicians, felt that the decision on the type of treatment to be offered to patients should be made in collaboration between patients, complementary therapists and oncology health care workers. However, one third of the physicians thought that treatment decisions had to be made by health care workers only., Interpretation: In general, this survey demonstrated a positive attitude towards integrated units offering complementary therapies, also among oncologists. However, major differences among professions were found.

Goals of Work: It is well documented that an increasing proportion of cancer patients today use complementary and alternative medicine, mostly alongside conventional therapies. This study investigates the use of complementary and alternative medicine among oncology health workers and the reported effects., Patients and Methods: In June 2002, we conducted a national multicentre survey including 828 Norwegian oncologists, nurses, clerks and therapeutic radiographers. The response rate was 61.5%., Main Results: We found that females were more often users of both complementary and alternative methods than males (39% versus 15% and 47% versus 17%) and that few oncologists had tried such treatments compared to nurses, therapeutic radiographers and clerks (20/12% versus 50/40%, 41/33%,and 31/50%). Interestingly, the majority of those who had tried unconventional methods reported some or very good effects. Acupuncture, homeopathy, aromatherapy and massage were the most popular therapies. Sub-group analyses including only oncologists showed that female physicians were more often users of both complementary and alternative methods compared to males (33% versus 12%, 25% versus 3%). Moreover, participants below the age of 35 years and Christians more often reported use., Conclusions: This survey demonstrates that significant proportion of oncology health workers in Norway have used non-proven therapies and that most have had a positive experience. Differences in use is highly dependent on gender, profession, age and religion.

This study reports on oncology professionals' knowledge and attitude toward complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), classified according to their primary application as complementary or alternative methods. In June 2002, we conducted a national, multicentre survey of 828 Norwegian oncologists, nurses, clerks and therapeutic radiographers. A response rate of 61% was achieved. Only a few physicians (4%) described their reactions to alternative medicine as positive compared with nurses (33%), therapeutic radiographers (32%) and clerks (55%) (P<0.0001). Females showed a more positive view than males (33% versus 14%, P<0.0001). More participants expressed a positive attitude to complementary versus alternative medicines. Most respondents regarded healing by hand or prayer, homeopathy, and Iscador (mistletoe) as alternative therapies. In contrast, most respondents classified acupuncture, meditation, reflexology, music/art-therapy, aromatherapy and massage as complementary therapies. This survey demonstrates major differences, by gender as well as oncology health profession in views about and the classification of various CAM methods.