您的账号已在其他设备登录,您当前账号已强迫下线,
如非您本人操作,建议您在会员中心进行密码修改

确定
收藏 | 浏览41

Complementary therapy use by patients with cancer is highly prevalent, although little is known about the optimal model of integration with conventional care. This study explored patient preferences regarding integration in an Australian context.Cancer patients participated in focus groups conducted by an experienced facilitator. Transcripts of discussions were subjected to thematic analysis.Fourteen female and four male patients took part in eight focus groups. Eleven had received conventional cancer treatment for early-stage disease, and seven for advanced stage. Participants had sound understanding of the distinction between complementary and alternative medicines. There were differing views on whether complementary therapy and conventional cancer services should be colocated. Some participants described colocation as discordant with their reasons for using complementary therapy. Participants valued guidance from oncology health professionals regarding complementary therapy that was tailored to their individual needs. In addition to medical oncologists, nursing staff and affiliated complementary therapists were considered to be appropriate sources for guidance. Additional themes identified in the analysis were also informative: patients achieve autonomy and self-expression through complementary therapies; the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals and limited consultation time are barriers to integration; self-funding of complementary therapies is acceptable to participants.The study findings suggest that while patients have diverse views regarding the optimal integration model, there is no strong preference for geographic colocation of complementary therapy with conventional cancer care. Patients valued personalized information and guidance regarding complementary therapy from health professionals involved in their cancer care.

作者:Peter, Savas;Amanda, Robertson;Lisa, Beatty;Emily, Hookings;Margaret, McGee;Julie, Marker;Belle, McCaleb;Joanne, Bowen;Alison, Richards;Bogda, Koczwara

来源:Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology 2016 年 12卷 2期

相似文献
知识库介绍

临床诊疗知识库该平台旨在解决临床医护人员在学习、工作中对医学信息的需求,方便快速、便捷的获取实用的医学信息,辅助临床决策参考。该库包含疾病、药品、检查、指南规范、病例文献及循证文献等多种丰富权威的临床资源。

详细介绍
热门关注
免责声明:本知识库提供的有关内容等信息仅供学习参考,不代替医生的诊断和医嘱。

收藏
| 浏览:41
作者:
Peter, Savas;Amanda, Robertson;Lisa, Beatty;Emily, Hookings;Margaret, McGee;Julie, Marker;Belle, McCaleb;Joanne, Bowen;Alison, Richards;Bogda, Koczwara
来源:
Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology 2016 年 12卷 2期
标签:
complementary therapy integrative medicine medical oncology qualitative research
Complementary therapy use by patients with cancer is highly prevalent, although little is known about the optimal model of integration with conventional care. This study explored patient preferences regarding integration in an Australian context.Cancer patients participated in focus groups conducted by an experienced facilitator. Transcripts of discussions were subjected to thematic analysis.Fourteen female and four male patients took part in eight focus groups. Eleven had received conventional cancer treatment for early-stage disease, and seven for advanced stage. Participants had sound understanding of the distinction between complementary and alternative medicines. There were differing views on whether complementary therapy and conventional cancer services should be colocated. Some participants described colocation as discordant with their reasons for using complementary therapy. Participants valued guidance from oncology health professionals regarding complementary therapy that was tailored to their individual needs. In addition to medical oncologists, nursing staff and affiliated complementary therapists were considered to be appropriate sources for guidance. Additional themes identified in the analysis were also informative: patients achieve autonomy and self-expression through complementary therapies; the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals and limited consultation time are barriers to integration; self-funding of complementary therapies is acceptable to participants.The study findings suggest that while patients have diverse views regarding the optimal integration model, there is no strong preference for geographic colocation of complementary therapy with conventional cancer care. Patients valued personalized information and guidance regarding complementary therapy from health professionals involved in their cancer care.