Above 80% of cancer care providers globally report a lack of knowledge regarding integrative oncology treatments that prevent them from offering these services to patients, according to survey findings published in Supportive Care in Cancer.
“The good news here is that this isn’t a mystery we can’t solve. Providers want to help their patients access these therapies—they just haven’t had the training, the referral pathways or the confidence to do it well. That’s a fixable problem,” stated corresponding study author Alexandre Chan, PharmD, PhD, MPH, Professor of Clinical Pharmacy in UC Irvine’s School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, and President of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC).
Background and Study Methods
Integrative oncology is a blend of standard cancer treatment with evidence-based complementary and supportive approaches to improve patients' quality of life during and after treatment. Such complementary approaches include nutrition counseling, yoga, acupuncture, mind-body practices, and more.
Researchers surveyed 282 members from the MASCC and the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO). They put together an online survey in Fall 2023 and asked about potential obstacles to offering integrative oncology approaches to patients, grading on a 5-point scale.
Key Findings
More than 80% of the survey respondents believed that health-care professionals lacked knowledge of integrative oncology approaches and that insurance and out-of-pocket costs were other considerable barriers to recommending integrative oncology.
About 80% also felt that a lack of referral pathways was a logistical barrier to recommending integrative oncology to patients. Meanwhile, 85% noted a lack of confidence in integrative oncology personally.
Participants from Europe were 2.2 times more likely than respondents from North America to agree with the perceived barrier of lack of knowledge (odds ratio [OR] = 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–4.67; P = .036).
Integrative oncology professionals in comparison with general physicians were more likely to note that the perception that integrative oncology would delay conventional care delivery was a barrier (OR = 3.62; 95% CI = 1.56–8.43; P = .0003).
The study authors noted that as these findings represent perspectives from an international sample of members of MASCC and SIO, it may not apply to all oncology professionals, and further research is needed to understand global roadblocks to integrative oncology use.
DISCLOSURES: For full disclosures of the study authors, visit springer.com.
