Search

In this project, an e-Learning program for complementary and integrative medicine in oncology was systematically developed, implemented, and evaluated in a stepwise procedure. Learning objectives and content were defined within the KOKON project network, considering the educational competencies for integrative oncology. To design a valuable e-Learning, experts were involved in all relevant steps of the process, as well as stakeholders from various target groups (undergraduates: medicine students, postgraduates: oncology physicians). We used mixed methods including quantitative surveys, progress tests, and qualitative focus groups. The developed e-Learning program led to a significant measurable knowledge gain about complementary and integrative medicine. In parallel, physicians and students were subjectively satisfied with the training. For the majority of e-Learning elements, the needs of both target groups are comparable. Furthermore, both groups emphasized the value of formative assessment tools for gaining knowledge. From the various surveys and experiences collected in this project, we derive recommendations for others developing e-Learning programs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Integrative oncology is a burgeoning field and typically provided by a multiprofessional team. To ensure cancer patients receive effective, appropriate, and safe care, health professionals providing integrative cancer care should have a certain set of competencies. The aim of this project was to define core competencies for different health professions involved in integrative oncology. The project consisted of two phases. A systematic literature review on published competencies was performed, and the results informed an international and interprofessional consensus procedure. The second phase consisted of three rounds of consensus procedure and included 28 experts representing 7 different professions (medical doctors, psychologists, nurses, naturopathic doctors, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, yoga practitioners, patient navigators) as well as patient advocates, public health experts, and members of the Society for Integrative Oncology. A total of 40 integrative medicine competencies were identified in the literature review. These were further complemented by 18 core oncology competencies. The final round of the consensus procedure yielded 37 core competencies in the following categories: knowledge (n = 11), skills (n = 17), and abilities (n = 9). There was an agreement that these competencies are relevant for all participating professions. The integrative oncology core competencies combine both fundamental oncology knowledge and integrative medicine competencies that are necessary to provide effective and safe integrative oncology care for cancer patients. They can be used as a starting point for developing profession-specific learning objectives and to establish integrative oncology education and training programs to meet the needs of cancer patients and health professionals., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Many cancer patients wish for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) consultations led by their oncology physician. Within the KOKON‐KTO study, oncology physicians in the intervention group were trained in a blended learning to provide CIM consultations to their cancer patients in addition to distributing a leaflet about CIM websites. Control oncology physicians only distributed the leaflet. The training showed positive effects on the patient‐level. As of now, no consistent evidence exists on the long‐term effects of such one‐time‐only CIM consultation during cancer treatment. Methods: In the KOKON‐KTO follow‐up study, cancer patients previously participating in the KOKON‐KTO study (intervention group:IG and control group: CG) received, at least 24 months later, a follow‐up questionnaire by post, evaluating long‐term effects of the KOKON‐KTO consultation using the measures provided in the original study (patient‐physician communication (EORTC‐QLQ‐COMU2), satisfaction with cancer treatment (PS‐CaTE), CIM disclosure with healthcare provider (HCP), and need for CIM consultation during cancer therapy). Results: In total, 102 cancer patients participated in the follow‐up study (IG n = 62; CG n = 40). The overall reponse rate was around 36% (IG: 48.4%; CG: 23.7%). In the follow‐up study, differences between groups had increased and were still shown (EORTC‐QLQ‐COMU26, 0–100 point scale, ≥10‐point‐group difference) in some subscales: patient's active behavior (in means; IG:73.6 (95% CI, 63.8–83.5); CG:61.1 (95% CI, 52.4–69.8)); clinician‐patient relationship (IG:80.9 (95% CI, 71.8–90.0); CG:68.7 (95% CI, 59.3–78.0)). For some outcomes, differences decreased over time (e.g., EORTC‐QLQ‐COMU26 subscales "takes into account patient's preference" and "corrects misunderstandings"). More patients in the CG used CIM without oncology physicians' knowledge (IG: 13.7%, CG: 24.0%). Conclusion: This study presents first findings that one‐time‐only CIM consultations may enhance patient‐physican relationship and CIM disclosure long‐term. To further support cancer patients' in their wish for CIM consultations, training programs should provide oncology physicians with CIM competencies for different cancer stages including cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer do not disclose complementary medicine use but want their physician's advice on this matter. This study evaluated whether using blended learning (e‐learning plus a workshop) to train oncology physicians in providing advice on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) therapies to their patients with cancer, in addition to distributing an information leaflet on reputable CIM websites, had different effects on patient‐reported outcomes for the consultation than only distributing the leaflet. METHODS: In this multicenter, cluster‐randomized trial, patients from private practices/hospital departments, recruited by 48 oncology physicians randomly allocated to an intervention group (CIM consultation plus information leaflet) or a control group (information leaflet), received CIM information. Patient‐reported outcomes included satisfaction (Patient Satisfaction With Information on Cancer Treatment), readiness to make a decision (Preparation for Decision Making), and physician‐patient communication (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Communication 26 [EORTC QLQ‐COMU26]) for the consultation. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a physician subsample. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients (128 in the intervention group and 169 in the control group) advised by 41 physicians participated. Patients in the intervention group rated physician‐patient communication higher on all EORTC QLQ‐COMU26 scales (mean total score, 84.3 [95% CI, 79.5‐89.2] vs 73.6 [95% CI, 69.3‐78.0]; P =.002), were more satisfied with the advice (mean, 4.2 [95% CI, 4.0‐4.4] vs 3.7 [95% CI, 3.5‐3.8]; P <.001), and were readier to make a decision (mean, 63.5 [95% CI, 57.4‐69.6] vs 53.2 [95% CI, 47.8‐58.7]; P =.016) than the control group. Physicians who reported patients in both settings seemed satisfied with the advice given. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated a novel education intervention for training oncology physicians in providing CIM advice in routine care. Providing structured CIM consultations had positive effects on patient satisfaction, readiness to make decisions, and physician‐patient communication. This is the first study to implement and evaluate an evidence‐based complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) consultation in routine cancer treatment. Advising patients with cancer according to a structured, evidence‐based consultation manual has positive effects on patient satisfaction, preparation for decision‐making, and physician‐patient communication in comparison with only distributing an information leaflet about CIM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The unmonitored use of complementary medicine in patients with cancer can be associated with an increased risk of safety-related issues, such as lower adherence to conventional cancer therapies. Training oncology physicians to advise their patients about the effectiveness and safety of these therapies could improve this situation.Methods: The objective of this study was to develop and pretest a consultation framework that has high potential to be widely implemented. The framework comprises: 1) a systematically developed and tested, manualized, guided consultation; and 2) blended learning training (e-learning and communication skills training workshop) to upskill oncology physicians in advising their patients on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). For this implementation study, mixed methods were used to develop the manual (literature review, consensus procedure, pilot testing) and the training (questionnaires and interviews with oncology physicians and patients with cancer and an examination of the skills in a setting with standardized patients).Results: The training was tested with 47 oncology physicians from across Germany. The manual-guided consultation (context: general information on the setting and communication techniques; inform: consultation duration and content; capture: previous CIM use; prioritize: focus on consultation; advise: evidence-based CIM recommendations; discuss, advise, accept, or advise against other CIM; concretize advice: summary and implementation; and monitor: documentation) was considered suitable. The structure and time frame (maximum, 20 minutes) of the consultation as well as the training were feasible and well accepted.Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that the KOKON-KTO framework (a German acronym for Competence Network for Complementary Medicine - Consultation Training for Oncology Physicians) is suitable for training oncology physicians. Its implementation can lead to better physician-patient communication about CIM in cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]