Fostering the Conversation About Complementary Medicine: Acceptability and Usefulness of Two Communication-Supporting Tools for Patients with Cancer.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Current oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.3390/curroncol31110547
Marit Mentink, Janneke Noordman, Anja Timmer-Bonte, Martine Busch, Sandra van Dulmen
{"title":"Fostering the Conversation About Complementary Medicine: Acceptability and Usefulness of Two Communication-Supporting Tools for Patients with Cancer.","authors":"Marit Mentink, Janneke Noordman, Anja Timmer-Bonte, Martine Busch, Sandra van Dulmen","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31110547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both patients and providers experience barriers to discussing complementary medicine during oncology consultations. This study describes the development of two communication tools-a question prompt sheet and a visual slideshow-and aims to evaluate their acceptability, perceived usefulness, and intention to use among patients with cancer. Nine (former) patients with breast cancer were involved in the development of the tools as co-researchers. The 15-item evaluation questionnaire was completed by 144 participants recruited from three Dutch hospitals, a patient panel, and the Dutch Breast Cancer Society. The tools' content and layout were generally acceptable, although suggestions were made to include items on exercise and diet in the question prompt sheet. About half of the participants found the tools useful, while the other half felt they were unnecessary, either because they could already discuss complementary medicine with their healthcare provider or had no interest in the topic. The tools were considered particularly helpful for fellow patients. The tools were well received though minor modifications were suggested. The lack of perceived need by half of the participants may have influenced the results. For effective use of the tools, it is important to identify patients who need extra support in discussing complementary medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 11","pages":"7414-7425"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11592416/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31110547","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Both patients and providers experience barriers to discussing complementary medicine during oncology consultations. This study describes the development of two communication tools-a question prompt sheet and a visual slideshow-and aims to evaluate their acceptability, perceived usefulness, and intention to use among patients with cancer. Nine (former) patients with breast cancer were involved in the development of the tools as co-researchers. The 15-item evaluation questionnaire was completed by 144 participants recruited from three Dutch hospitals, a patient panel, and the Dutch Breast Cancer Society. The tools' content and layout were generally acceptable, although suggestions were made to include items on exercise and diet in the question prompt sheet. About half of the participants found the tools useful, while the other half felt they were unnecessary, either because they could already discuss complementary medicine with their healthcare provider or had no interest in the topic. The tools were considered particularly helpful for fellow patients. The tools were well received though minor modifications were suggested. The lack of perceived need by half of the participants may have influenced the results. For effective use of the tools, it is important to identify patients who need extra support in discussing complementary medicine.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
促进关于补充医学的对话:癌症患者对两种交流辅助工具的接受度和实用性。
在肿瘤咨询过程中,患者和医疗服务提供者在讨论补充医学时都会遇到障碍。本研究介绍了两种交流工具--问题提示表和可视幻灯片--的开发情况,旨在评估癌症患者对这两种工具的接受程度、感知有用性和使用意向。九名(前)乳腺癌患者作为共同研究者参与了工具的开发。从荷兰三家医院、一个患者小组和荷兰乳腺癌协会招募的 144 名参与者填写了 15 个项目的评估问卷。尽管有人建议在问题提示表中加入有关运动和饮食的项目,但工具的内容和布局总体上是可以接受的。大约一半的参与者认为这些工具很有用,而另一半人则认为没有必要,因为他们已经可以与医疗服务提供者讨论补充医学,或者对这个话题不感兴趣。大家认为这些工具对病人尤其有帮助。尽管有人建议对这些工具稍作修改,但它们还是受到了好评。半数参与者认为没有必要,这可能影响了结果。为了有效使用这些工具,重要的是要找出在讨论补充医学时需要额外支持的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
期刊最新文献
Sex-Related Differences in Immunotherapy Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Sociocultural and Clinical Determinants of Sexual Dysfunction in Perimenopausal Women with and Without Breast Cancer. Electrochemotherapy in the Locoregional Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review. Exploiting Integrin-αVβ3 to Enhance Radiotherapy Efficacy in Medulloblastoma via Ferroptosis. Fostering the Conversation About Complementary Medicine: Acceptability and Usefulness of Two Communication-Supporting Tools for Patients with Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1