Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction:

Almost half of all patients with cancer use complementary medicine (CM) alongside conventional cancer treatment. Further integration of CM into clinical practice could enhance communication and ensure improved coordination between complementary medicine and conventional care. This study assessed the perspectives of healthcare professionals on the current status of integration of CM in oncology, as well as their attitudes and beliefs toward CM.

Methods:

A convenience, volunteer sample of healthcare providers and healthcare managers working in oncology in the Netherlands were surveyed, using a self-reporting, anonymous, online questionnaire. The perspectives on the current status of integration and barriers to implementing complementary medicine were characterized in part 1, while part 2 assessed respondents’ attitudes and beliefs regarding CM.

Results:

A total of 209 people completed part 1 of the survey and 159 people completed the entire questionnaire. Two-thirds (68.4%) of the respondents indicated that their organization has implemented complementary medicine in oncology, or envisions implementation, while 49.3% stated they were missing something to implement CM in oncology. About 86.8% of the respondents (completely) agreed that complementary medicine is an important supplement to oncological treatment. Female respondents were more likely to express positive attitudes, as well as respondents whose institutions have implemented CM.

Conclusion:

The findings of this study indicate that attention is being paid to the integration of CM into oncology. Overall, the attitudes of respondents toward CM were positive. The main barriers for implementing CM activities were missing knowledge, experience, financial support, and support from management. To improve the ability of healthcare providers to guide patients in their use of complementary medicine, these issues should be delved into in future research.

Keywords

complementary medicine cancer integrative oncology healthcare professional attitude survey

Introduction

In 2020, the estimated number of new cancer cases was around 19.3 million worldwide.¹ To improve their quality of life and to cope with treatment toxicities,^2-4 almost half of all patients with cancer worldwide use complementary medicine (CM) alongside conventional cancer treatment.^2-4 Corresponding with these global findings, around 65% of Dutch cancer patients with breast cancer⁵ and 42% with hematological cancer indicated use of complementary medicine.⁶ A questionnaire focusing on the use of both complementary and alternative medicine in pediatric oncology in the Netherlands showed that 42.4% of the children with cancer made use of such therapies.⁷ Cancer patients are more likely to use CM during an advanced state of illness⁸ and overall, the prevalence of use has been increasing over the years.² Complementary medicine consists of “supportive measures that help control symptoms, enhance well-being, and contribute to overall patient care,”⁹ such as acupuncture, physiotherapy, mindfulness, nutritional supplements, and yoga.^9,10 Although evidence exists that CM can be beneficial for patients with cancer,^11-13 there is also a risk of harm when used in combination with conventional cancer treatment, in particular for supplements^14-16 Therefore, effective communication between patients and their healthcare providers on the use of complementary medicine is pertinent.¹⁷

However, a systematic review indicated that around 40% to 50% of cancer patients (range 20%-77%) do not discuss their use of CM with their healthcare provider.¹⁸ In the Netherlands, patients with breast cancer, hematological cancer, and pediatric cancer indicated that 29%, 38%, and 66% respectively did not discuss their use of complementary medicine with their healthcare provider.^5-7 Patients explained this lack of communication by stating that they either experienced barriers for discussing these options with their provider or that they did not consider it necessary.^5-7,18 To gain a better understanding of how improvement in communication about CM can be facilitated, it is important to be aware of the attitudes and beliefs of healthcare providers on this topic and what underlying factors influence these. Previous self-report studies show that one of the biggest hurdles that oncologists experience is not having enough knowledge on the topic.^4,19-22

Further integration of CM into clinical practice could enhance the communication between healthcare providers and patients on the topic of CM, as well as reduce the risk of harm by improving the coordination between complementary medicine and conventional care.²³ Within this paper, integration is broadly defined, from research and education on the topic of CM, to internally offering evidence-based CM services or having a referral network with qualified external CM providers. There is a growing interest in CM integration, due to greater awareness of the potential benefits, and an increase in demand for CM by patients with cancer.^24-30 Key stakeholders of the integration of complementary medicine in conventional cancer care include healthcare providers and healthcare managers.³¹ Research indicates that healthcare managers are less familiar with CM compared to other healthcare professionals and that familiarity is a large factor for positive attitudes.³² From the healthcare providers’ side, the main reasons mentioned to explain why CM is not further integrated into oncological care were missing evidence, financial resources and qualifications.^21,33,34

In the Netherlands, mostly positive attitudes toward complementary medicine were found for diverse healthcare providers, although the majority of respondents considered their knowledge on CM to be lacking.^35-37 In a study surveying the opinions of (non)-clinical Dutch healthcare professionals active in various fields, 64% of the respondents believed that the use of complementary medicine is of importance for optimal healthcare and would consider integration in their institution.³² To the best of our knowledge, no study has focused on the attitudes of Dutch healthcare providers and managers in oncology specifically. The purpose of this study is to assess the attitudes and beliefs of Dutch healthcare providers and managers on complementary medicine, as well as to gain a better understanding of the current status of integration of and communication about CM in oncology.

Methods

In this study, a self-reporting, anonymous, online questionnaire was administered among healthcare providers and healthcare managers working in an oncological setting in the Netherlands.

Respondents

A convenience, volunteer sample of healthcare providers and healthcare managers working in oncology was recruited. When opening the link to the questionnaire, respondents gave explicit consent for the use of their data.

Procedure

A comprehensive overview of general oncology centers and all oncology outpatient clinics of hospitals in the Netherlands was created, resulting in a list of 74 oncology departments. The secretaries of these departments were approached by phone or by e-mail with the request to distribute the link to the online questionnaire among healthcare providers and healthcare managers working at their department. Secretary contact details were derived from the websites of the hospitals. After a month, a reminder was sent to all departments. In order to reach more participants, the link to the online questionnaire was also placed on the websites of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), the Oncological Collaboration Foundation (SONCOS) and the Professional Association of Nurses and Caretakers in Oncology (V&VN). Furthermore, an announcement was made in the online IKNL newsletter. The link to the online questionnaire remained open for 2 months (4 May-1 July 2021). Of the 74 oncology departments that were directly approached, we received (partly) completed questionnaires from 54 departments (73%). Besides, healthcare providers or managers from 20 additional institutes responded, such as radiotherapy clinics and specialized oncology centers (eg, breast cancer). The mean number of respondents per institute was 3.3 (SD = 4.6). Only respondents who completed at least the first part of the questionnaire were included in the analyses.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was adapted from previous publications^32,35,38 and piloted among 2 healthcare providers (1 oncologist, 1 oncology nurse) and 1 healthcare manager working in an oncology department at an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Completion time during the pilot appeared to be approximately 5 minutes. The pilot resulted in minor modifications to the formulation of the questions before the final version was disseminated.

The final questionnaire starts with an assessment of the demographic characteristics of respondents (sex, age category, organization, department, specialization). This was followed by a clear description of what complementary medicine entails, with examples provided, to ensure that the respondents had similar definitions of CM in mind. The survey that followed consisted of 2 parts, with 14 questions in total. The first part relates to the status of integration. First, a general assessment was made of the degree and area of implementation of complementary medicine in the respondent’s oncology department (areas: healthcare program, research, education, organization policy, department policy, personal policy, or other). Then, respondents were queried about barriers to implementation (knowledge, experience, scientific evidence, financial sources, support of management or colleagues, or other). The subsequent four questions were focused on specific details of the integration of complementary medicine in their institution related to communication: discussing, advising, referring or offering complementary medicine. The second part aims to gain more insight into the attitudes of healthcare professionals toward this integration. With this intent, 7 statements about the integration of complementary medicine in oncology care were presented to the respondents.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic characteristics of respondents, the perspectives of healthcare providers on the integration of CM, and the respondents’ general attitudes and beliefs toward CM. A multivariable analysis was performed to gain a better understanding of the underlying influences for the attitudes and beliefs toward CM. Adopting the stepwise method conducted by Lee et al,¹⁹ chi-squared tests were performed to explore the variables relating to the attitudes and beliefs of respondents toward CM. The variables that had a P-value ≤.20 in the chi-squared tests were included in the binomial logistic regression models. An exception was made for the variables “type of healthcare providers” and their sex, due to the high level of multicollinearity (chi-squared P-value <.000). Therefore, when both variables were significant in the univariable analyses, the variable with the lowest P-value was chosen to include in the multivariable analysis. The independent variables included in the analyses were “type of healthcare provider,” “age” and “sex of respondents,” as well as whether or not CM activities have been implemented in the institution. Due to the low response rate of managers, only healthcare providers (medical specialists and nurses) were included in the model. The univariable analyses can be found in the Appendix (Table A1). The nominal outcome variables included in the univariable analyses had to be transformed into dichotomous outcome variables for the multivariable logistic regression model. In line with for example, van Vliet et al.,³⁵ positive attitudes and beliefs were captured by (completely) disagreeing with “healthcare providers should not engage in CM” and “my institution should not offer CM internally,” or (completely) agreeing with “CM is important as supplement to oncological treatment,” “healthcare providers should routinely inquire about patients CM use,” “healthcare providers should be able to advise on the effectiveness and safety of CM,” and “my institution should have a referral network of external CM providers.” All statistical analyses were performed using Stata/SE software (version 16.1).

Ethical Considerations

The research project “COMMON” was exempted from formal approval under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act by the Arnhem-Nijmegen Medical Ethics Committee (case number 2020-6917).

Results

Characteristics of Respondents

Of the 260 people who started the survey, a total of 209 respondents (80.4%) provided complete information up to and including part 1; perspectives on the integration of CM (Figure 1). Of these, 159 healthcare professionals completed the entire survey, including the questions on attitudes and beliefs toward CM (61.2%). The majority of 209 respondents were women (85.9%) and 60.5% of the respondents were 50 years or younger (Table 1). Mostly nurses (76.1%) and medical specialists (20.1%) completed the survey. The 159 respondents that finished the entire survey are generally very similar in terms of demographic distribution to the 209 respondents that just filled in part 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart exclusion criteria survey responses.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Respondents.

Characteristics	Part 1 complete		Part 1 and part 2 complete
		%^a		%^a
	No.	(n = 209)	No.	(n = 159)
Sex
Female	176	84.2	133	85.3
Male	29	13.9	23	14.7
Missing	4	1.9	-	-
Age (years)
< 20	1	0.5	1	0.6
20-30	22	10.5	15	9.6
31-40	51	24.4	37	23.7
41-50	50	23.9	39	25.0
51-60	67	32.1	52	33.3
>60	14	6.7	12	7.7
Missing	4	1.9	-	-
Type of institution
Oncology center	12	5.7	10	6.3
Academic hospital	54	25.8	44	27.7
Other hospitals	140	67.1	102	64.1
Missing	3	1.4	3	1.9
Department
Oncology	142	67.9	107	67.3
Surgery	13	6.2	10	6.3
Radiotherapy	9	4.3	8	5.0
Other (urology, palliative care, etc.)	45	21.5	33	20.8
Missing	1	0.5	1	0.6
Type of healthcare professional
Nurse	159	76.1	112	70.4
(of which women)	144	91.1	102	91.1
Medical specialist¹	42	20.1	40	25.2
(of which women)	27	65.9	26	65.0
Manager, policy advisor, etc.	8	3.8	7	4.4
(of which women)	5	62.5	5	71.4

Percentages may add to less than 100% due to rounding.

Of which 5 in (fellowship) training.

Perspectives on the Integration of Complementary Medicine

In Table 2, an overall impression of the perspectives on the integration of complementary medicine in oncology is depicted (n = 209). Two-thirds (68.4%) of the respondents indicated that their organization has implemented complementary medicine in oncology, or envisions implementation. Most of the implemented activities were implemented at department level. In the open question, activities mentioned were massages, tools for acupressure or colleagues specializing in counseling about complementary medicine.

Table 2.

Integration of Complementary Medicine.

1. Has your institution implemented activities related to complementary medicine in oncology?				Percentage (n = 209)^a
				Yes	Not yet, but it is planned	No	I don’t know
				58.4	10.0	20.6	11.0
If yes, in which field:	Percentage (n = 122)
If yes, in which field:	Healthcareprogram	Research	Education	Institution policy	Department policy	Individually	Other
	30.3	19.7	18.0	23.8	54.1	22.1	18.0
2. Are you missing something to implement activities related to complementary medicine in oncology?					Percentage (n = 209)^a
					Yes	No	I don’t know
					49.3	28.7	22.0
If yes, what do you lack:		Percentage (n = 103)
If yes, what do you lack:		Knowledge	Experience	Scientific evidence	Financial support	Management support	Other
		65.0	49.5	43.7	47.6	47.6	22.3
3. Below are several options for offering complementary medicine to oncology. Please tick what applies to your institution.					Percentage (n = 159)^a
					Realized	In preparation/envisioned	Not envisioned
a. Patients can discuss complementary medicine with healthcare providers					71.1	7.5	21.4
b. Healthcare providers can advise patients about complementary medicine					45.3	18.9	35.8
c. Healthcare providers can refer to external complementary healthcare providers					43.4	8.8	47.8
d. The organization offers complementary medicine internally					42.1	14.5	43.4

Percentages may add to less or more than 100% due to rounding.

Of all 209 respondents, 49.3% stated they experienced 1 or more barriers to implement activities related to complementary medicine in oncology, of which knowledge was most commonly indicated to be lacking. This was followed by lack of experience, financial support and management support. Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of complementary medicine was least indicated, although it was still selected by 43.7% of respondents. In the category “other,” respondents added other lacking sources, such as time for implementation and execution, opportunities to learn from experienced colleagues, coordination with involved parties, and acceptance and commitment from colleagues.

A notable 71.1% of respondents said that in their institution, patients can discuss complementary medicine with their healthcare provider. However, less than half of respondents believed that healthcare providers in their institution are able to advise patients about complementary medicine (45.3%), although 18.1% indicated this is in preparation. Moreover, only 43.3% reported the ability to refer to external complementary medicine providers or to offer CM internally (42.1%). Many did not expect a change in referral to and internal offering of complementary medicine (47.8% and 43.3%, respectively).

General Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Complementary Medicine

In Table 3, the general attitudes and beliefs of respondents toward complementary medicine are summarized (n = 159). In total, 86.8% (completely) agreed that complementary medicine is an important supplement to oncological treatment. Over three-quarters (76.7%) felt that healthcare providers should engage in complementary medicine for patients, but fewer people (69.1%) believed that healthcare providers should routinely inquire about the use of complementary medicine by patients. The majority (82.3%) of respondents believed that healthcare providers must be able to advise patients on the effectiveness and safety of complementary medicine, although 72.3% indicated that they would need support to discuss this topic with patients. Moreover, 19.5% thought that their institution should not offer CM internally, while 62.3% believed that their organization should have a referral network of external complementary healthcare providers.

Table 3.

Attitudes and Beliefs toward Complementary Medicine.

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:	Percentage (n = 159)^a
	Completely agree	Agree	Do not agree or disagree	Disagree	Completely disagree	I do not know/not applicable
a. I think complementary medicine as a supplement to oncological care is important	42.8	44.0	8.8	1.3	2.5	0.6
b. Healthcare providers ^b do not need to engage in complementary medicine for patients	1.9	6.9	13.8	39.6	37.1	0.6
c. Healthcare providers ^b should routinely inquire about patients’ use of complementary medicine	13.8	55.3	20.1	8.2	1.3	1.3
d. Healthcare providers ^b should be able to advise patients on the effectiveness and safety of complementary medicine	22.6	59.7	8.8	6.3	1.3	1.3
e. My organization must have a referral system for external CM providers	17.6	44.7	22.0	10.1	3.1	2.5
f. I need support (eg, communication guide, knowledge overview) when discussing complementary medicine with patients	20.1	52.2	8.8	13.2	3.1	2.5
g. My institution should not offer complementary medicine internally to patients	5.7	13.8	26.4	30.8	21.4	1.9

Percentages may add to less or more than 100% due to rounding.

Healthcare providers include both medical specialists and nurses.

Multivariable Analysis of Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Complementary Medicine

As can be seen in Table 4, being female makes it significantly more likely to (completely) agree with the belief that CM is an important supplement (OR, 5.10; 95% CI, 1.58-16.41) and to (completely) disagree with the statement that healthcare providers should not engage in CM (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.17-9.37). Institutional implementation of CM also made it more likely for respondents to (completely) agree with the statement that healthcare providers should routinely inquire about patients’ CM use (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.07-4.74) and to (completely) disagree with the statement that their organization should not offer CM internally (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.09-4.69). Lastly, nurses were more likely than medical specialists to agree that there should be an external referral system (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.02-4.60) and that CM should be offered internally (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.01-5.13). The age of respondents was never significantly associated with the attitudes and beliefs of respondents.

Table 4.

Multivariable Analysis of Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Complementary Medicine (CM).

	CM is important as supplement to oncological treatment (Completely) agree		Healthcare providers should not engage in CM (Completely) disagree
Predictor	OR^a	95% CI^b	OR^a	95% CI^b
Type of healthcare provider (nurses vs medical specialists)
Age
Sex (female vs male)	5.10^***	1.58-16.41	3.31^**	1.17-9.37
CM implementation (yes vs no)	1.86	0.64-5.36	1.73	0.76-3.93
	Healthcare providers should routinely inquire about patients’ use of CM (Completely) agree		Healthcare providers should be able to advise patients on the effectiveness and safety of CM (Completely) agree
Predictor	OR^a	95% CI^b	OR^a	95% CI^b
Type of healthcare provider (nurses vs medical specialists)
Age			1.08	0.75-1.57
Sex (female vs male)	0.58	0.18-1.92
CM implementation (yes vs no)	2.25^**	1.07-4.74	1.77	0.73-4.29
	My organization must have a referral network of external CM providers (Completely) agree		My organization should not offer CM to patients (Completely) disagree
Predictor	OR^a	95% CI^b	OR^a	95% CI^b
Type of healthcare provider (nurses vs medical specialists)	2.17^**	1.02-4.60	2.28^**	1.01-5.13
Age
Sex (female vs male)
CM implementation (yes vs no)			2.26^**	1.09-4.69

Odds Ratio.

Confidence interval.

P < .10; ^**P < .05; ^***P < .01 by multivariable logistic regression.

Discussion

This survey examined the attitudes and beliefs toward CM among a sample of Dutch healthcare professionals in oncology, as well as their perspectives on the current status of integration of CM in oncology. Over half of the respondents indicated that their institution has implemented CM in their oncology department, while 10% stated that implementation is envisioned. A direct comparison of the extent of integration to that of other countries is not possible, as such studies used different conceptualizations, methods and definitions. However, some findings are highlighted for the purpose of context. A European study stated that 47.5% of European oncology centers provided integrative oncological treatments,^4,39 while an Australian study found that 25.8% of their organizations offered integrative oncology. In the United States, 60% of National Cancer Institutes listed information on integrative therapies on their websites.²⁸

Around half of the respondents reported they lack something for CM implementation in oncology. Congruent with previous findings, barriers to implementing CM activities indicated by the study sample were mainly a lack of knowledge^4,19-22 and experience,^32,35 but also lacking financial support,^28,40,41 support from management,^25,34,40 and scientific evidence.^4,40,42 The majority of respondents indicated a need for support in discussing CM use, despite the results showing that in most hospitals, patients are provided with the opportunity to discuss CM use with their healthcare providers. A survey conducted in Germany also indicated low confidence among healthcare providers in discussing CM.⁴³ These limitations can hinder a healthcare providers’ ability to adequately advise their patients and to provide support, which may lead to patients making decisions on CM use that could potentially be harmful.^14-16 Providing education and training on CM for healthcare professionals could be part of the answer.^44,45 Moreover, the responses show that less than half of the institutions in this sample refer to external CM providers or offer CM internally to patients, which also seem to be less envisioned compared to discussing and advising patients on CM use. Lack of financial support and support from management and colleagues can potentially explain this finding. Change can be driven by professionals working in the field; however, healthcare managers are key stakeholders needed to facilitate the integration of complementary medicine in conventional care. Therefore, their attitudes, beliefs and perspectives on this topic are relevant,³¹ particularly since some of the crucial key points mentioned for effective integration are having a strong strategic plan, supportive leadership and a viable operating budget.^25,41 Little research has been done on investigating the managers’ perspectives on CM^31,46 and thus, further research into this topic is warranted. As this group of interest is relatively small, a more direct approach might be more suitable than convenience sampling. Given the limited number of responses, unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn on the opinions of managers included in this survey.

Overall, the attitudes of the respondents toward CM were positive. Most respondents agreed that CM is an important supplement to conventional cancer treatment and that healthcare providers need to engage and should have knowledge on the topic. Previous surveys in European countries also report a predominantly positive attitude among oncology professionals toward CM,^20,43,47 although healthcare provider’ attitude is not measured in a consistent manner across studies. Respondents seemed more neutral when it comes to the routine inquiry of CM use, external referral systems or internally offering CM. Already having implemented CM in the institution meant that respondents were significantly more likely to believe that healthcare providers should routinely inquire about CM use and that their institution should offer CM internally. This suggests that healthcare providers are more uncertain how CM should be integrated into standard care when it has not been implemented yet. Examinations of different types of implementation show a preference for a more integrative form of oncology care, where patients receive guidance and have access to all information and care at a single location.^4,48 Compared to medical specialists, nurses were more likely to show a positive attitude toward referral to external CM providers and offering CM internally. This could be due to nursing being generally a more holistic and supportive role toward the patient than the more technical role of a medical specialist.³⁵ Lastly, in line with previous research,^19,42,47,49 the results show that female healthcare providers are significantly more positive toward complementary medicine as part of cancer treatment compared to male healthcare providers. This could reflect a greater open-mindedness of females toward CM in general as some suggest,^42,47 backed up by studies showing that female patients are also more interested in CM than men.^50-52 However, the high response rate of nurses (who are mainly female, see Table 1) might have influenced these results as well, given the high multicollinearity between the type of healthcare professionals and their sex.

Some other limitations of this study are important to note when interpreting the findings. The method chosen is a convenience, volunteer sample, which is a poorer reflection of the population compared to random sampling.⁵³ Due to this chosen method, the sample size is relatively low with limited statistical power to detect small differences.⁵⁴ The survey was split into 2 parts and designed to be simple to encourage response. About 80.4% of the respondents completed only the first half of the survey and 61.2% filled it in completely, limiting the generalizability of the findings. This might reflect self-selection bias, as it can be assumed that respondents who fully completed the survey were generally more interested in and/or positive toward the topic of CM, thus influencing the results of attitudes and beliefs. Moreover, all data were self-reported, which can thus be subject to recall bias for the questions about integration, in addition to the possibility that the respondents may not be fully aware of what their institution provides. Lastly, the concept of implementation is open to many interpretations, and it is therefore not entirely certain how the respondents perceived the questions on the integration of CM. The answers should thus merely be interpreted as a signal that complementary medicine has been receiving more consideration.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that in a sample of Dutch healthcare providers, consisting mainly of nurses, attention is being paid to the integration of CM into oncology. Overall, the attitudes of respondents toward CM were positive. The main barriers for implementing CM activities were missing knowledge, experience, financial support, and support from management. To improve the ability of healthcare providers to guide patients in their use of complementary medicine, these issues should be delved into in future research.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Univariable Analysis of Attitudes and Beliefs.

Predictor	Complementary medicine is an important supplement to oncological treatment				Healthcare providers should not engage in complementary medicine
Predictor	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) agree	Do not (completely) agree	P (χ2-test)	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) disagree	Do not (completely) disagree	P (χ2-test)
Type of healthcare provider				0.017				0.986
Medical specialist	40	30	10		39	30	9
Nurse	112	101	11		112	86	26
Age				0.932				0.799
<20	1	1	0		1	1	0
20-30	15	12	3		15	11	4
31-40	37	33	4		37	29	8
41-50	39	33	6		38	29	9
51-60	52	45	7		52	38	14
>60	12	11	1		12	11	1
Sex				0.010				0.034
Male	23	16	7		22	13	9
Female	133	119	14		133	106	27
CM implementation				0.185				0.138
Yes	98	89	9		98	80	18
No	48	40	8		48	34	14
Predictor	Healthcare providers should routinely inquire about patients’ use of complementary medicine				Healthcare providers should be able to advise patients on the effectiveness and safety of complementary medicine
Predictor	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) agree	Do not (completely) agree	P (χ2-test)	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) agree	Do not (completely) agree	P (χ2-test)
Type of healthcare provider				0.711				0.542
Medical specialist	38	28	10		39	31	8
Nurse	112	79	33		111	93	18
Age				0.714				0.093
<20	1	1	0		1	1	0
20-30	15	9	6		15	13	2
31-40	37	26	11		36	25	11
41-50	38	24	14		38	36	2
51-60	52	38	14		52	44	8
>60	11	9	2		12	9	3
Sex				0.175				0.661
Male	22	18	4		22	19	3
Female	132	89	43		132	109	23
CM implementation				0.026				0.174
Yes	97	74	23		98	84	14
No	48	28	20		47	36	11
Predictor	My institution should have a referral network of external complementary medicine providers				My organization should not offer complementary medicine to patients
Predictor	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) agree	Do not (completely) agree	P (χ2-test)	Total^a (n = 159)	(Completely) disagree	Do not (completely) disagree	P (χ2-test)
Type of healthcare provider				0.041				0.015
Medical specialist	38	19	19		39	15	24
Nurse	111	76	35		110	67	43
Age				0.839				0.809
<20	1	1	0		1	1	0
20-30	15	10	5		15	9	6
31-40	36	22	14		37	20	17
41-50	36	22	14		38	22	16
51-60	52	35	17		51	24	27
>60	12	6	6		11	6	5
Sex				0.960				0.197
Male	22	14	8		22	9	13
Female	130	82	48		131	73	58
CM implementation				0.274				0.044
Yes	97	66	31		96	59	37
No	46	27	19		48	21	27

Numbers may not add up to the total because of missing values.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grant number 12566].

ORCID iD

Aniek Schouten

References

World Health Organization. Estimated number of new cases in 2020, worldwide, both sexes. 2020. Accessed November 8, 2021. http://gco.iarc.fr/

Horneber

Bueschel

Dennert

Less

Ritter

Zwahlen

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):187-203. doi:10.1177/1534735411423920

Keene

Heslop

Sabesan

Glass

BD.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in cancer: a systematic review. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019;35:33-47. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.01.004

King

Balneaves

Levin

, et al. Surveys of cancer patients and cancer health care providers regarding complementary therapy use, communication, and information needs. Integr Cancer Ther. 2015;14(6):515-524. doi:10.1177/1534735415589984

Borstkanker Vereniging Nederland. Maak(te) jij gebruik van ‘complementaire zorg’? [Do or did you make use of ‘complementary medicine’?]. 2017. Accessed October 27, 2021. https://bforce.nl/maakte-jij-gebruik-van-complementaire-zorg

Hematon. Grote groep patiënten maakt gebruikt van complementaire zorg [Large group of patients makes use of complementary medicine]. 2018. Accessed October 27, 2021. https://www.hematon.nl/nieuwsberichten/grote+groep+patienten+maakt+gebruik+van+complementaire+zorg

Singendonk

Kaspers

Naafs-Wilstra

Meeteren

Loeffen

Vlieger

High prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use in the Dutch pediatric oncology population: A Multicenter Survey. Eur J Pediatr. 2013;172(1):31-37. doi:10.1007/s00431-012-1821-6

Truant

Porcino

Ross

Wong

Hilario

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use in Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review. J Support Oncol. 2013;11(3):105-113. doi:10.12788/j.suponc.0011

Cassileth

Deng

Gomez

Johnstone

Kumar

Vickers

AJ.

Complementary Therapies and integrative oncology in Lung Cancer: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest. 2007;132(3 Suppl):340S-354S. doi:10.1378/chest.07-1389.

10.

West

HJ.

Complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(1):139. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.3120

11.

Molassiotis

Sylt

Diggins

The management of cancer-related fatigue after chemotherapy with acupuncture and acupressure: a randomised controlled trial. Complement Ther Med. 2007;15(4):228-237. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2006.09.009

12.

Frenkel

Abrams

Ladas

, et al. Integrating dietary supplements into cancer care. Integr Cancer Ther. 2013;12(5):369-384. doi:10.1177/1534735412473642

13.

Shennan

Payne

Fenlon

What is the evidence for the use of mindfulness-based interventions in cancer care? A review. Psychooncology. 2011;20(7):681-697. doi:10.1002/pon.1819

14.

Lagman

Walsh

Dangerous nutrition? Calcium, vitamin D, and shark cartilage nutritional supplements and cancer-related hypercalcemia. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11(4):232-235. doi:10.1007/s00520-002-0428-2

15.

Sparreboom

Cox

Acharya

Figg

WD.

Herbal remedies in the United States: potential adverse interactions with anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2489-2503. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.08.182

16.

McCune

Hatfield

Blackburn

Leith

Livingston

Ellis

GK.

Potential of chemotherapy-herb interactions in adult cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12(6):454-462. doi:10.1007/s00520-004-0598-1

17.

Frenkel

Ben-Arye

Cohen

Communication in cancer care: discussing complementary and alternative medicine. Integr Cancer Ther. 2010;9(2):177-185. doi:10.1177/1534735410363706

18.

Davis

Butow

Mullan

Clarke

Cancer patient disclosure and patient-doctor communication of complementary and alternative medicine use: a systematic review. Oncologist. 2012;17(11):1475-1481. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0223

19.

Lee

Barbo

Lopez

, et al. National Survey of US oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns regarding herb and supplement use by patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4095-4101. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8676

20.

Chang

Brodie

Choong

Sweeney

Kerin

MJ.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in oncology: a questionnaire survey of patients and health care professionals. BMC Cancer. 2011;11(1):196. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-196

21.

Kessel

Klein

Hack

Combs

SE.

Complementary medicine in radiation oncology: German health care professionals’ current qualifications and therapeutic methods. Strahlenther Onkol. 2018;194(10):904-910. doi:10.1007/s00066-018-1345-8

22.

Roth

Lin

Kim

Moody

Pediatric oncologists’ views toward the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with cancer. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2009;31(3):177-182. doi:10.1097/MPH.0b013e3181984f5a

23.

Chung

VCH

LTF

Leung

Wong

CHL

. Designing delivery models of traditional and complementary medicine services: a review of international experiences. Br Med Bull. 2021;137(1):70-81. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaa046

24.

Ezeji-Okoye

Kotar

Smeeding

Durfee

JM.

State of care: complementary and alternative medicine in Veterans Health Administration—2011 survey results. Fed Pract. 2013;30(11):14-19.

25.

Taylor

Bolton

Huynh

, et al. What should health care systems consider when implementing complementary and integrative health: lessons from Veterans Health Administration. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(S1):S52-S60. doi:10.1089/acm.2018.0445

26.

Hall

Leach

Brosnan

Collins

Nurses’ attitudes towards complementary therapies: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;69:47-56. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.01.008

27.

Wahner-Roedler

Lee

Chon

Cha

Loehrer

Bauer

BA.

Physicians’ attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine and their knowledge of specific therapies: 8-year follow-up at an Academic Medical Center. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2014;20(1):54-60. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2013.09.003

28.

Yun

Sun

Mao

JJ.

Growth of integrative medicine at leading cancer centers between 2009 and 2016: a systematic analysis of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center websites. J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs. 2017;2017(52):lgx004. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgx004

29.

Hunter

Grant

Delaney

, et al. Barriers and facilitators to integrative oncology services in Australia: a changed mind set required. J Altern Complement Med. 2021;27(S1):S89-S98. doi:10.1089/acm.2020.0299

30.

Rossi

Di Stefano

Firenzuoli

Monechi

Baccetti

Add-on complementary medicine in cancer care: evidence in literature and experiences of integration. Medicines. 2017;4(1):5. doi:10.3390/medicines4010005

31.

Singer

Adams

Integrating complementary and alternative medicine into mainstream healthcare services: the perspectives of health service managers. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14(1):167. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-167

32.

Jong

Margreet Hofstede

Schats

Meijer

JEM

Koolen

von Rosenstiel

IA.

Attitudes towards integrative medicine among healthcare professionals in the Netherlands. Eur J Integr Med. 2011;3(3):e209-e217. doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2011.06.004

33.

Stub

Quandt

Arcury

Sandberg

Kristoffersen

AE.

Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018;18(1):44. doi:10.1186/s12906-018-2106-z

34.

Hübner

Muenstedt

Muecke

, et al. Counseling cancer patients on complementary and alternative medicine. Background, theory, and implementation of nationwide counseling facilities. Strahlenther Onkol. 2013;189(8):613-617. doi:10.1007/s00066-013-0392-4

35.

van Vliet

Jong

Busch

Meijer

von Rosenstiel

Jong

MC.

Attitudes, beliefs, and practices of integrative medicine among nurses in the Netherlands. J Holist Nurs. 2015;33(2):110-121. doi:10.1177/0898010114555339

36.

Vlieger

van Vliet

Jong

MC.

Attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine: a national survey among paediatricians in the Netherlands. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170(5):619-624. doi:10.1007/s00431-010-1331-3

37.

Gunawan

Arnoldussen

Gordijn

, et al. Comparing health-care providers’ perspectives on complementary and alternative medicine in childhood cancer between Netherlands and Indonesia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(1):118-123. doi:10.1002/pbc.25689

38.

Jong

van Vliet

Huttenhuis

van der Veer

van den Heijkant

Attitudes toward integrative paediatrics: a national survey among youth health are physicians in the Netherlands. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:4-4. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-12-4

39.

Rossi

Vita

Baccetti

Di Stefano

Voller

Zanobini

Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(6):1795-1806. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2517-4

40.

Smith

Hunter

Delaney

, et al. Integrative oncology and complementary medicine cancer services in Australia: Findings from a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018;18(1):289. doi:10.1186/s12906-018-2357-8

41.

Coulter

Ellison

Hilton

Rhodes

Ryan

GW.

Hospital-Based Integrative Medicine: A Case Study of the Barriers and Factors Facilitating the Creation of a Center. RAND Corporation; 2007.

42.

Trimborn

Senf

Muenstedt

, et al. Attitude of employees of a university clinic to complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(10):2641-2645. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt299

43.

Klein

Guethlin

Information and training needs regarding complementary and alternative medicine: a cross-sectional study of cancer care providers in Germany. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018;17(2):380-387. doi:10.1177/1534735416666372

44.

Kligler

Maizes

Schachter

, et al. Core competencies in integrative medicine for medical school curricula: a proposal. Acad Med. 2004;79(6):521-531. doi:10.1097/00001888-200406000-00006

45.

Corbin Winslow

Shapiro

. Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(10):1176-1181. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.10.1176

46.

Singer

Adams

An exploratory study of the health service managers role in providing effective integrative health care. Eur J Integr Med. 2013;5(1):27-35. doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2012.08.006

47.

Risberg

Kolstad

Bremnes

, et al. Knowledge of and attitudes toward complementary and alternative therapies: a national multicentre study of oncology professionals in Norway. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(4):529-535.

48.

Grant

Hunter

Seely

Balneaves

Rossi

Bao

Integrative oncology: international perspectives. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1534735418823266. doi:10.1177/1534735418823266

49.

Hann

Baker

Denniston

MM.

Oncology professionals’ communication with cancer patients about complementary therapy: a survey. Complement Ther Med. 2003;11(3):184-190. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(03)00091-8

50.

Molassiotis

Fernández-Ortega

Pud

, et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(4):655-663. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi110

51.

Fouladbakhsh

Stommel

Given

CW.

Predictors of use of complementary and alternative therapies among patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32(6):1115-1122. doi:10.1188/05.ONF.1115-1122

52.

Verhoef

Balneaves

Boon

Vroegindewey

Reasons for and characteristics associated with complementary and alternative medicine use among adult cancer patients: a systematic review. Integr Cancer Ther. 2005;4(4):274-286. doi:10.1177/1534735405282361

53.

Hultsch

MacDonald

SWS

Hunter

Maitland

Dixon

RA.

Sampling and Generalisability in developmental research: comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26(4):345-359. doi:10.1080/01650250143000247

54.

Button

Ioannidis

Mokrysz

, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(5):365-376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475

Perspectives and Attitudes of Dutch Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Integration of Complementary Medicine in Oncology

Abstract

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Respondents

Procedure

Questionnaire

Data Analysis

Ethical Considerations

Results

Characteristics of Respondents

Perspectives on the Integration of Complementary Medicine

General Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Complementary Medicine

Multivariable Analysis of Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Complementary Medicine

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References