Bridging the Gap between Cancer Patients and Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Gerald Shah^*
*Correspondence: Gerald Shah, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA, Email:

Keywords

Cancer • Patients • Medicine

Introduction

The world of cancer treatment has expanded far beyond conventional medicine, with many patients turning to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as a vital part of their healing journey. Despite the frequent use of CAM among cancer patients, open and informative discussions about these therapies between patients and healthcare providers remain scarce. This article delves into the often-unspoken realm of CAM in cancer care, where doctors' concerns about the lack of evidence intersect with patients' hunger for information. We explore how the lack of knowledge on CAM can hinder this essential dialogue and discuss the potential benefits of improving communication in this domain.

Literature Review

Complementary and Alternative Medicine encompasses a wide array of practices, ranging from herbal remedies to acupuncture, meditation, and dietary supplements. Many cancer patients turn to CAM to complement their conventional treatments, seeking relief from side effects, improved wellbeing, and a sense of control over their health. In contrast to the frequent use of CAM, there is often a significant gap in communication regarding these therapies. Cancer patients are keen to know more about CAM, including its potential benefits, risks, and how these practices might harmonize with their conventional treatments. It's a conversation they not only desire but often require for their holistic well-being.

One reason for the scarcity of communication about CAM is the focus on the lack of scientific evidence supporting these therapies. Conventional healthcare providers often prioritize treatments with proven efficacy, which leads to skepticism about CAM practices. This skepticism can inadvertently discourage discussions about these therapies, leaving patients in a vacuum of uncertainty. The lack of knowledge about CAM, both on the part of patients and healthcare providers, presents a significant barrier to meaningful communication. Patients may feel hesitant to raise the topic, fearing judgment or dismissal, while doctors may feel unequipped to provide guidance on practices they perceive as lacking in scientific validation [1].

Discussion

Effective communication is pivotal in bridging the gap between patients and healthcare providers on the subject of CAM. The communication style adopted by healthcare professionals is vital in shaping the course of these conversations. A more open, empathetic, and informative approach can foster a sense of trust, enabling patients to share their experiences and make informed decisions. Enhancing communication about CAM holds the potential to positively impact cancer treatment adherence and integration. By creating an environment where patients feel comfortable discussing their use of CAM, healthcare providers can better support their patients' comprehensive wellbeing and potentially enhance treatment outcomes [2].

The use of CAM in cancer care is a prevalent but often unspoken reality. To provide the best care for cancer patients, healthcare providers must recognize the significance of this conversation and work to close the knowledge gap. While concerns about the lack of evidence are valid, a more open and informed dialogue about CAM can lead to better-informed patients, increased trust, and a more holistic approach to cancer care. The power of communication should not be underestimated, as it has the potential to positively influence treatment adherence and integration, ultimately benefiting the well-being of cancer patients. In the world of healthcare, communication is the cornerstone of understanding and collaboration between patients and healthcare providers [3].

This axiom holds particularly true when discussing Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). The way healthcare providers approach conversations about CAM can significantly influence the course of communication, shaping patients' decisions and overall well-being. This article delves into the impact of communication styles on discussions about CAM and emphasizes the role of effective communication in fostering treatment adherence and integration. Effective communication hinges on the approach and style adopted by healthcare providers when discussing CAM with their patients. Various communication styles can influence the patient's perception, receptiveness, and understanding of CAM. The key styles that often come into play include:

Some healthcare providers may adopt an authoritarian approach, conveying a strict "doctor knows best" attitude. This style can inadvertently shut down patient-initiated discussions about CAM, potentially leaving patients feeling unheard and disempowered. A more informative style involves providing patients with data and facts about CAM, including evidence-based information and potential benefits and risks. This approach encourages patients to make informed choices but may sometimes come across as overly didactic. A collaborative approach fosters a partnership between healthcare providers and patients. In this style, patients are actively involved in decisionmaking, and discussions about CAM are open, respectful, and centered on shared decision-making [4].

The choice of communication style can significantly impact the course of discussions about CAM. An authoritarian style can deter patients from sharing their experiences and beliefs, leading to incomplete information and potential hidden use of CAM. Conversely, an informative style can educate patients about CAM but may not necessarily address their unique needs and concerns. The collaborative style, however, is proving to be the most effective approach. It encourages patients to actively participate in the conversation, ask questions, and express their views. This style creates a space for open dialogue and shared decision-making, resulting in a more personalized approach to CAM use [5,6].

Conclusion

Improved communication about CAM directly benefits treatment adherence and integration. When patients feel heard and respected, they are more likely to openly discuss their use of CAM and share their experiences. This, in turn, allows healthcare providers to offer guidance, ensure patient safety, and support the integration of CAM into the overall treatment plan. Effective communication is the linchpin in discussions about CAM, as it determines the course of these conversations and significantly influences patient decisions and well-being. Healthcare providers must recognize the importance of adopting a collaborative communication style when discussing CAM with their patients. By fostering open and respectful dialogue, healthcare providers can empower patients to share their experiences, ask questions, and actively participate in decision-making. A better communication approach is key to enhancing patient treatment adherence and the seamless integration of CAM into overall healthcare strategies, ultimately promoting patients' holistic well-being.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Williams, Mark V, David W. Baker, Ruth M. Parker and Joanne R. Nurss. "Relationship of functional health literacy to patients' knowledge of their chronic disease: A study of patients with hypertension and diabetes." AMA Arch 158 (1998): 166-172.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Haapaniemi, Aaro, Leena Kankaanranta, Riste Saat and Hanna Koivunoro, et al. "Boron neutron capture therapy in the treatment of recurrent laryngeal cancer." IJROBP 95 (2016): 404-410.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Kankaanranta, Leena, Tiina Seppälä, Hanna Koivunoro and Kauko Saarilahti, et al. "Boron neutron capture therapy in the treatment of locally recurred head-and-neck cancer: Final analysis of a phase I/II trial." IJROBP 82 (2012): e67-e75.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Brest, P, E. A. Corcelle, A. Cesaro, A. Chargui and A. Belaid, et al. "Autophagy and Crohn's disease: At the crossroads of infection, inflammation, immunity, and cancer." Curr Mol Med 10 (2010): 486-502.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Cowin, Pamela, Tracey M. Rowlands and Sarah J. Hatsell. "Cadherins and catenins in breast cancer." COCEBI 17 (2005): 499-508.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Lin, Fan-Li, Peng-Yuan Wang, Yu-Fan Chuang and Jiang-Hui Wang, et al. "Gene therapy intervention in neovascular eye disease: A recent update." Mol 28 (2020): 2120-2138.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at