Search

Background: Complementary Medicine (CM) is widely used internationally but there is limited understanding of the forms of knowledge CM practitioners use in their clinical practice and how they use this knowledge in interactions with patients. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on the forms of knowledge that are mobilised, and the role of this knowledge in the interactions between practitioners and patients during CM consultations. It considered a diverse range of CM practice areas to develop a classification of CM practitioners' knowledge use in consultations. Methods: Systematic searches of health and sociology databases were conducted using core concepts, including complementary and alternative medicine, practitioners, and knowledge. Articles were included where they reported on data from recorded CM practitioner and patient consultations and offered insights into the types and applications of knowledge used in these consultations. 16 unique studies were included in the review. Data were extracted, coded and analysed thematically. Results: Results demonstrate that diverse sources of knowledge were mobilised by practitioners, predominantly derived from the patients themselves –their bodies and their narratives. This reflected principles of patient-centredness. The use of discipline specific forms of knowledge and references to biomedical sources illustrated ongoing efforts towards legitimacy for CM practice. Conclusion: CM practitioners are navigating tensions between what some might see as competing, others as complementary, forms of knowledge. The classification system provides a useful tool for promoting critically reflective practice by CM practitioners, particularly in relation to self-assessment of knowledge translation and patient interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scoping reviews of health research are increasing in popularity. However, only a minority of scoping reviews in this sector engage patients and caregivers as co-producers of the research. Despite developments in scoping review methodology, which insist that stakeholder consultation is essential, no guiding methods exist to instruct the conduct of this stage. Thus, it is necessary to understand how patients and caregivers have been engaged as part of scoping reviews, toward a unifying methodology. Methods: We have developed a protocol for a scoping review of methods used to engage patients and caregivers in scoping reviews of health research. The search strategy will comprise two phases: the first will involve a secondary analysis of retrieved articles from a prior scoping review, and the second will identify articles that cite Levac et al.'s update to the original scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Titles and full texts of retrieved articles will be screened in duplicate. Inclusion will be limited to articles related to heath research that follow the six-stage scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and that report patient engagement activities during at least one stage. The method of analysis of charted variables will be decided once data have been collected. Two patients will be engaged as collaborators throughout this review. We will also consult with patients, caregivers, and researchers upon completion of preliminary analyses. Discussion: We anticipate that our scoping review will provide guidance for researchers seeking to involve health care stakeholders as co-producers of scoping reviews. Plain English summary: A "scoping review" is a type of study that collects and summarizes published and unpublished research reports to better understand the amount and types of information available on a particular topic. There is a well-known framework for how to conduct a scoping review, which involves six stages. The sixth stage is optional, and involves consulting with people who have an interest in the research results (i.e., people who the research is "about" or who it will affect the most). Very few scoping reviews actually include this stage, potentially due to a lack of practical guidance on how to perform it. For scoping reviews related to health research, it is important to consult or more widely engage patients and caregivers in the scoping review's conduct because these individuals have a unique type of knowledge that comes from their experience of a health issue, which can yield valuable insights. Therefore, we have designed a scoping review that will identify the ways in which patients and caregivers have been engaged in scoping reviews of health research in the past. We hope to produce recommendations to make it easier for other researchers to engage patients and caregivers in scoping reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To report on our experience using a simple optional form to facilitate communication on late effects between the patients and the oncologists during outpatient follow-up and to detail on the spectrum of challenges reported by sarcoma survivors. Methods: The form was presented for the patients to complete before their consultation and covered topics related to late effects and unmet needs that the patient wished to discuss with the medical personnel. Logistic regression analysis examined how the distribution of the topics varied with age, gender, diagnosis and type of treatment received. Results: The form was manageable in a busy outpatient clinic. Of the 265 patients that received the form, 236 (89%) returned it. Patients in a palliative setting and those with other diagnosis than bone sarcoma (BS) and soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) were excluded for subsequent analyses. The final study-cohort comprised 160 patients, 54 (34%) with BS and 106 (66%) with STS. Among these, 140 (88%) had late-effect topics they wanted to discuss with their oncologist. Fatigue was raised by 39% of the patients, pain by 29% and impaired mobility by 23%. BS patients raised fatigue more often (P < 0.005) than those with STS. Patients who had undergone multimodal treatment with chemotherapy raised fatigue more frequently (P < 0.001) than those who had only undergone surgery, radiotherapy or both. Conclusions: A simple form on the long-term consequences of sarcoma treatment achieved a high response rate, was feasible to use in an outpatient clinic and facilitated communication on these issues. Fatigue was the most frequent topic raised and it was raised significantly more often in patients who had undergone chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]