Complementary and conventional providers in cancer care: experience of communication with patients and step to improve communication with other providers
Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/11399Date
2017-06-08Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Abstract
Background: Effective interdisciplinary communication is important to achieve better quality in health care. The
aims of this study were to compare conventional and complementary providers’ experience of communication
about complementary therapies and conventional medicine with their cancer patients, and to investigate how they
experience interdisciplinary communication and cooperation.
Method: This study analyzed data from a self-administrated questionnaire. A total of 606 different health care
providers, from four counties in Norway, completed the questionnaire. The survey was developed to describe
aspects of the communication pattern among oncology doctors, nurses, family physicians and complementary
therapists (acupuncturists, massage therapists and reflexologists/zone-therapists). Between-group differences were
analyzed using chi-square, ANOVA and Fisher’s exact tests. Significance level was defined as p < 0.05 without
adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Result: Conventional providers and complementary therapists had different patterns of communication with their
cancer patients regarding complementary therapies. While complementary therapists advised their patients to apply
both complementary and conventional modalities, medical doctors were less supportive of their patients’ use of
complementary therapies. Of conventional providers, nurses expressed more positive attitudes toward
complementary therapies. Opportunities to improve communication between conventional and complementary
providers were most strongly supported by complementary providers and nurses; medical doctors were less
supportive of such attempts. A number of doctors showed lack of respect for complementary therapists, but asked
for more research, guidelines for complementary modalities and training in conventional medicine for
complementary therapists.
Conclusion: For better quality of care, greater communication about complementary therapy use is needed
between cancer patients and their conventional and complementary providers. In addition, more communication
between conventional and complementary providers is needed. Nurses may have a crucial role in facilitating
communication, as they are positive toward complementary therapies and they have more direct communication
with patients about their treatment preferences.