Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the communication between doctors and patients who were taking bone‐stabilizing medication and in rare cases developed osteonecrosis of the jaw as a result. Material and Methods: A standardized questionnaire recorded deficits based on patient experiences. These data were used to develop solution strategies for improving doctor–patient communication and the benefit–risk assessment of medication use. Results: Most patients were satisfied with the information provided by their doctor; however, one in three (29.8%) were not informed about possible side effects, and a quarter (24.6%) only found out about osteonecrosis of the jaw through their own research. Only half (45.7%) were asked about risk factors, and most information materials were rated poorly. The diagnosis took an average of 18.7 months, with many (47.8%) consulting a doctor only when they experienced pain. Quality of life was severely impaired, with daily pain, physical limitations, and negative effects on mental health. About a third (35.3%) reported that their quality of life had deteriorated significantly. Conclusions: Further research into patient education is necessary. Web‐based information brochures, improved follow‐up care, and close cooperation with dentists are required. The use of a running sheet, such as the AGSMO running sheet, for individual risk assessment of osteonecrosis of the jaw is recommended. Patients undergoing treatment with bone‐stabilizing medication should be monitored closely. Education about osteonecrosis of the jaw must be continued, and the medical profession must be confronted with it. Clinical significance: Our study contributes to presenting the disease from the patient's perspective and combines the knowledge and communication skills of doctors with patient assessments. At the same time, the study is an up‐to‐date indicator of the medical profession's knowledge of the ARONJ disease and the side effects of bone‐stabilizing medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. In recent years, decision-making between conventional medicine, complementary medicine (CM), and alternative medicine (AM) has been studied. The purpose of this study is to take a closer look at patients' thoughts regarding AM and CM and, if possible, to identify differences. Patients and Methods. Ten cancer patients were recruited to participate in a guided semistructured interview. Recruitment was via verbal request during counseling sessions for complementary healing methods. The main recruiting criterion was their interest in or use of AM or CM. In the following face-to-face interviews, demographic data, previous experience with alternative medicine and conventional medicine, doctor-patient communication, role of the family, and sources of information were determined. The interviews were conducted in a semistructured manner using a guide and were recorded anonymously. The recordings were subsequently transcribed. Results. The number of patients was 10, of which eight were female and seven could show higher educational status. In most of the cases, poor communication was mentioned, both in past situations and at the time of diagnosis. Patients described a lack of emotion in the communication of their diagnosis and paternalistic discussions. They complained that they did not receive an overview of the therapy and that they were hardly involved in the decision-making process. Especially, the demanding content as well as the scarcity of conversation time played an important role for the doctor-patient relationship and the resulting trust toward the doctor. A fundamentally dismissive attitude toward CM, AM, and CAM procedures led to a more fragile trust base. Most frequently used sources were the Internet, support organizations, and books. Conclusion. The first point of contact for cancer patients is usually the conventional physician. Commonly, he is one of the most important sources. If the patient is satisfied with the atmosphere of the conversation and the information regarding CAM received, he will probably follow the doctor's recommendations. Only in the case of dissatisfaction do patients seek advice from alternative medicine. Good training of conventional physicians in communication and complementary therapy options could, therefore, be of great importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global burden of cancer continues to rise and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is attracting a lot of interest. However, quality of online information on CAM, particularly on platforms like YouTube, remains questionable. This study aimed to create a comprehensive assessment tool to assess the quality of CAM-related YouTube videos, crucial for informed decision-making in oncology., Methods: The assessment tool was developed by adapting existing criteria for website content analysis to video rating. A YouTube search was conducted using German-language terms related to CAM ("complementary medicine (CM) for cancer" and "alternative medicine (AM) for cancer"). In total 25 videos were assessed based on the defined criteria and assigned to five different types of providers (journalism, healthcare organization, hospital or health insurance, independent person, non-medical organization). Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27., Results: Interrater reliability analysis showed an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of .91, indicating good to excellent agreement. The average video result was of poor quality, with none of the videos meeting all criteria. The videos achieved a mean rating of 38.2 points (SD: 6.5 points; possible range: 20-60 points). Journalism-based videos showed the most views per days, particularly surpassing those from hospitals or health insurance providers (Kruskal-Wallis-Test: z  = 3.14, P  = .02). However, there was no statistically significant correlation between video quality and the type of provider or interaction indices. Videos retrieved under the search term "CM" generally scored higher in quality than those under "AM" (Mann-Whitney U test: U  = 39.5, P  = .04). Nonetheless, "CM" videos were less frequently viewed (Mann-Whitney U test: U  = 31.0, P  = .01)., Conclusion: This study, the first of its kind focusing on CAM in cancer care emphasized the challenges in identifying credible sources on social media platforms such as YouTube. The developed assessment tool offers a more detailed evaluation method for health-related videos but requires further refinement and testing. Collaboration between healthcare and media entities is suggested to improve the dissemination of reliable information on platforms like YouTube., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background/aim: Non-medical practitioners (NMPs) are an ill-defined group of professionals offering patient diagnostic and therapeutic methods mostly in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite a lack of quality-assessed structured professional formation, many patients with cancer visit NMPs for advice. This study aimed to learn more on patients' motives and expectations for consulting an NMP., Patients and Methods: A standardized questionnaire was distributed to adult cancer patients addressing attitudes towards NMPs, motives and expectations for consulting an NMP., Results: A total of 279 patients took part in the survey. Of the included patients 44.8% had already visited an NMP and 16.5% planned to do so. Reasons to visit an NMP were seeking for a supplementary treatment (72.0%) or control of side-effects (68.0%). While the oncologist ranked higher than the NMP in all aspects of physician-patient interaction and patients more often trusted in the oncologist, those patients rating their oncologist rather low in any of these questions significantly more often consulted an NMP. The methods applied or recommended by the NMPs were highly heterogenous ranging from biologically-based methods to mind-body-techniques. Most often used methods were homeopathy (72.0%) vitamin D (62.7%), selenium (42.7%), acupuncture (38.7%)., Conclusion: There is a high proportion of cancer patients visiting NMPs mostly for additional treatment. Biologically-based treatments may induce side-effects and interactions, especially as NMPs are not trained on medically accepted cancer treatment and medications. Offering information on CAM and improving the physician-patient relationship are important means to answer unmet needs from the side of the patient., (Copyright © 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)