In recent years, there has been an increased interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among people with cancer. Many are looking for informed advice and desire communication with their physicians about CAM use. Communication is crucial in establishing trust with patients, gathering information, addressing patient emotions, and assisting patients in decisions about care. The quality of communication in cancer care has been shown to affect patient satisfaction, decision making, patient distress and well-being, compliance, and even malpractice litigation. Communication is now recognized as a core clinical skill in medicine, including cancer care, and is important to the delivery of high-quality care. A communication approach that fosters a collaborative relationship that includes adequate information exchange, responds to emotional needs, and manages uncertainty can lead to informed decisions about CAM use. This type of communication can help facilitate an open discussion with cancer patients and their families about integrating CAM use into their care and help physicians fulfill their roles in caring, comforting, and healing, even when cure is not possible. In this article, the authors discuss a possible model of effective patient—physician communication about CAM use in cancer care based on a comprehensive overview of the literature.

Background. Despite family practitioners frequently being requested to assist their patients with advice on or referrals to complementary–alternative medicine (CAM), there is an absence both of evidence about the efficacy of nearly all specific treatments or modalities and of guidelines to assist with the integration of conventional and CAM therapies. Objective. The aim of this article is to suggest a comprehensive and rational, best-evidence strategy for integrating CAM by primary care practitioners into primary care, within the context of the limitations of the current knowledge base and the local milieu. Methods. The suggested approach was developed by a combination of literature review, key informant interviews, focus groups, educational presentations for family practice residents and practitioners, and field testing. An iterative model was utilized whereby more refined drafts of the suggested approach were subjected to later discussants and groups, as well as further field testing. Drafts of the strategy were utilized in consultations of patients requesting advice on alternative medicine in a primary care setting and in a CAM clinic. Results. Both family physicians and CAM practitioners provided useful comments and recommendations throughout the process. These can be categorized in terms of knowledge, attitudes and skills. Our strategy suggests that patients requesting advice on the use and integration of CAM modalities as part of their health care should be evaluated initially by their primary care physician. The physician’s responsibilities are to evaluate the appropriateness of that use, and to maintain contact, monitoring outcomes. Advice on referrals should be based on the safety of the method in question, current knowledge on indications and contraindications of that modality, and familiarity and an open dialogue with the specific therapist. Conclusions. Given patients’ demands and utilization of CAM therapies, despite the lack of evidence, there is an increasing need to address how CAM therapies can be integrated into conventional medical systems. These suggestions should respond to patient’s expectations and needs, but at the same time maintain accepted standards of medical and scientific principles of practice.

Objectives. This study portrays the characteristics of patients who attended an integrative oncology clinic at a large comprehensive cancer center and evaluated whether this service addressed patients’ concerns about complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). Methods. Patient information was collected prior to an integrative consultation, including demographics, previous use of CIM, and primary reason for requesting the consultation. Concerns and outcomes were measured using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Well-being (MYCaW) Scale at the consultation and then again at follow-up (6-12 weeks later). Patients met with a physician for an integrative consultation that included a discussion of nutrition, supplements, physical activity, useful complementary therapies, and the mind—body—spirit connection. Results. A total of 238 patients were referred for consultation regarding the integration of CIM into their care. The majority of participants were female (60%, n = 143), and the mean age was 56 years (range, 21-90 years), with all major cancer types represented. Patients’ leading concerns were related to “What else can I do?” and “How can I better cope?” Although distressed over these concerns at the initial consultation, intense distress (5-6 out of 6 on the MYCaW scale) was reduced to less than half (31%) by the follow-up visit. Additional qualitative data revealed that patients value the process of obtaining reliable information that empowers them to be more involved in managing their care. Conclusions. Integrative medicine consultations at a large comprehensive cancer center appear to provide some benefit in addressing patients’ concerns about CIM use.

Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) is becoming an increasingly popular and visible component of oncology care. Many patients affected by cancer and their family members are looking for informed advice and desire communication with their physicians about CIM use. Patients affected by cancer come to discuss CIM use with intense emotions and are experiencing an existential crisis that cannot be ignored. Effective communication is crucial in establishing trust with these patients and their families. Communication is now recognized as a core clinical skill in medicine, including cancer care, and is important to the delivery of high-quality care. The quality of communication affects patient satisfaction, decision-making, patient distress and well-being, compliance, and even malpractice litigation. The communication process about CIM use requires a very sensitive approach that depends on effective communication skills, such as experience in listening, encouraging hope, and ability to convey empathy and compassion. This process can be divided into two parts: the "how" and the "what". The "how" relates to the change in clinician attitude, the process of gathering information, addressing patients' unmet needs and emotions, and dealing with uncertainty. The "what" relates to the process of information exchange while assisting patients in decisions about CIM use by using reliable information sources, leading to informed decision-making.

With the increased popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), there is a growing interest in the topic among physicians, residents, and medical students, who feel an increased need to have proper instruction about CAM therapies. Medical schools and residency programs are starting to respond to this demand, having realized that to provide better care and foster an improved patient—doctor relationship, physicians should become informed consultants, and be able to provide educated advice about CAM to their patients and help them integrate any CAM therapies shown to be safe and effective into their health care. The authors acknowledge that opinions differ about the adequacy of research findings to certify the safety and efficacy of specific therapies, and stress that physicians' decisions about CAM use should be subject to the same exacting criteria employed by researchers to evaluate any new therapies. The authors report on CAM curriculum developments in Germany, Canada, and the United States that illustrate various approaches to the question, “What should be taught in a CAM course?” In most cases, the approach is to teach about CAM therapies, although in others, therapies that the curriculum planners considered useful and safe are being integrated into the medical curriculum.

Many studies confirm that a majority of patients undergoing cancer therapy use self-selected forms of complementary therapies, mainly dietary supplements. Unfortunately, patients often do not report their use of supplements to their providers. The failure of physicians to communicate effectively with patients on this use may result in a loss of trust within the therapeutic relationship and in the selection by patients of harmful, useless, or ineffective and costly nonconventional therapies when effective integrative interventions may exist. Poor communication may also lead to diminishment of patient autonomy and self-efficacy and thereby interfere with the healing response. To be open to the patient’s perspective, and sensitive to his or her need for autonomy and empowerment, physicians may need a shift in their own perspectives. Perhaps the optimal approach is to discuss both the facts and the uncertainty with the patient, in order to reach a mutually informed decision. Today’s informed patients truly value physicians who appreciate them as equal participants in making their own health care choices. To reach a mutually informed decision about the use of these supplements, the Clinical Practice Committee of The Society of Integrative Oncology undertook the challenge of providing basic information to physicians who wish to discuss these issues with their patients. A list of leading supplements that have the best suggestions of benefit was constructed by leading researchers and clinicians who have experience in using these supplements. This list includes curcumin, glutamine, vitamin D, Maitake mushrooms, fish oil, green tea, milk thistle, Astragalus, melatonin, and probiotics. The list includes basic information on each supplement, such as evidence on effectiveness and clinical trials, adverse effects, and interactions with medications. The information was constructed to provide an up-to-date base of knowledge, so that physicians and other health care providers would be aware of the supplements and be able to discuss realistic expectations and potential benefits and risks.