Perceptions of homeopathy in supportive cancer care among oncologists and general practitioners in France.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
In France, homeopathy is the most frequently used complementary therapy in supportive care in oncology (SCO); its use is steadily increasing. However, data is limited about the perception and relevance of homeopathy by oncologists and general practitioners (GPs) both with and without homeopathic training (HGPs and NHGPs, respectively). Our aim was to evaluate French physicians' perceptions of homeopathy to clarify its place in SCO through two original observation survey-based studies.Materials and methods
Two cross-sectional surveys of French physicians were conducted involving (1) 150 specialist oncologists; (2) 97 HGPs and 100 NHGPs. Questions evaluated physician attitudes to homeopathy and patterns of use of homeopathic therapies in patients requiring SCO. Survey responses were described and analyzed on the basis of physician status.Results
Ten percent of oncologists stated they prescribe homeopathy; 36% recommend it; 54% think that homeopathy is potentially helpful in SCO. Two-thirds of the NHGPs sometimes prescribe homeopathy in the context of SCO and 58% regularly refer their patients to homeopathic doctors. HGPs have a positive perception of homeopathy in SCO.Conclusions
Homeopathy is viewed favorably as an integrated SCO therapy by the majority of French physicians involved with cancer patients-oncologists and GPs. Symptoms of particular relevance include fatigue, anxiety, peripheral neuropathy, sleep disturbance, and hot flashes. In such clinical situations, response to conventional therapies may be suboptimal and homeopathy is considered a reliable therapeutic option. These two studies highlight the fact that homeopathy has gained legitimacy as the first complementary therapy in SCO in France.
SUBMITTER: Bagot JL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8410724 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeMultidisciplinary video consultations are one method of improving coherence and coordination of care in cancer patients, but knowledge of user perspectives is lacking. Continuity of care is expected to have a significant impact on the quality of cancer care. Enhanced task clarification and shared responsibility between the patient, oncologist and general practitioner through video consultations might provide enhanced continuity in cancer care.MethodWe used descriptive survey data from patients and doctors in the intervention group based on a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the user perspectives and fidelity of the intervention.ResultsPatients expressed that they were able to present their concerns in 95% of the consultations, and believed it was beneficial to have both their doctors present in 84%. The general practitioner and oncologist found that tripartite video consultation would lead to better coordination of care in almost 90% of the consultations. However, the benefits of handling social issues and comorbidity were sparser. Consultations were not accomplished in 11% due to technical problems and sound and video quality were non-satisfactory in 20%.ConclusionOverall, multidisciplinary video consultations between cancer patient, general practitioner and oncologist were feasible in daily clinics. Initial barriers to address were technical issues and seamless planning. Patients reported high satisfaction, patient centredness and clarity of roles. General practitioners and oncologists were overall positive regarding role clarification and continuity, although less pronounced than patients.Trial registrationwww.clincialtrials.gov , NCT02716168.
| S-EPMC7686003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFacilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.ResultsThirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.ConclusionPatients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.Patient or public contributionPatients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.
| S-EPMC10632636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background For several years now, the socio-political context in France has widened the territorial divide between metropolitan France and peripheral France. Access to healthcare is part of this divide, which harms small and medium-sized towns as well as rural fringes. This article focuses on these geographic dynamics in access to healthcare, with a focus on self-employed general practitioners (GPs), who are essential links in the care pathway as referring physicians. Methods This paper uses data from French public statistics from 2007 to 2017 to build spatial panels and to highlight the territorial factors that explain the dynamics of the locations of GPs. Results Over the period under review, the density of GPs has decreased and territorial disparity has increased. There is no trend towards a worsening of this isolation of either the periphery or deprived cantons with regard to the density of GPs in these areas. However, we note a clear trend towards the grouping together of different types of care within cantons, leading to a tendency towards the polarization of the healthcare supply in the territories of mainland France, which implies another type of geographical difficulty. Conclusion The increase in territorial disparities in accessibility to GPs does not really seem to correspond to the classical divides in France, but rather raises the issue of intra-metropolis and intra-periphery disparities. Highlights • There is a worsening of access to general practitioners between 2007 and 2017.• Territorial inequalities in access to general practitioners have also increased.• Spatial dynamics are studied with spatial panels.• There is a tendency for doctors to group together in the same cantons.• GPs seem particularly attracted by the availability of services.
| S-EPMC9530612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advance care planning (ACP) facilitates communication and understanding of preferences, nevertheless the use of ACPs in primary care is low. The uncertain course of dementia and the inability to communicate with the patient living with dementia are significant challenges for GPs to initiate discussions on goals of care.A cross-sectional survey, using a purposive, cluster sample of GPs across Northern Ireland with registered dementia patients was used. GPs at selected practices received the survey instrument and up to four mail contacts was implemented.One hundred and thirty-three GPs (40.6%) participated in the survey, representing 60.9% of surveyed practices. While most respondents regarded dementia as a terminal disease (96.2%) only 37.6% felt that palliative care applied equally from the time of diagnosis to severe dementia. While most respondents thought that early discussions would facilitate decision-making during advanced dementia (61%), respondents were divided on whether ACP should be initiated at the time of diagnoses. While most respondents felt that GPs should take the initiative to introduce and encourage ACP, most survey participants acknowledged the need for improved knowledge to involve families in caring for patients with dementia at the end of life and that a standard format for ACP documentation was needed.Optimal timing of ACP discussions should be determined by the readiness of the patient and family carer to face end of life. ACP discussions can be enhanced by educational strategies directed towards the patient and family carer that enable shared decision-making with their GP when considering options in future care.
| S-EPMC4410576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the current healthcare delivery system funded by National Health Insurance (NHI) in Indonesia, the gatekeeper role of primary care services is critical to ensuring equal healthcare access for the population. To be effective, gatekeeping relies on the performance of general practitioners (GPs). However, the perceptions held by Indonesian GPs about their gatekeeper role are not yet well documented. This study describes the self-perceived knowledge, attitudes and performance of Indonesian GPs with respect to the gatekeeper role and explores associated factors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of all primary care facilities (N = 75) contracted by the regional NHI office in the Banyumas district. The 73 participating GPs completed a written questionnaire that assessed their knowledge, attitudes and performance in relation to the gatekeeper role. Personal and facility characteristics were analysed in a generalised linear model as possible associating factors, as well as for the association between GPs' knowledge and attitude with performance as gatekeepers.ResultsGPs scored relatively high in the domains of knowledge and performance but scored lower in their attitudes towards the gatekeeper role of primary care. In the full-adjusted model, no factors were significantly associated with the knowledge score. Work experience as GPs, private or civil service employment status and rural or urban location of the primary care facility were linked to attitude scores. Full- or part-time employment and type of facility were factors associated with the performance score. Attitude scores were positively associated with performance score.ConclusionGPs in Indonesia are knowledgeable and report that they adequately perform their function as gatekeepers in primary care. However, their attitudes towards the gatekeeper function are less positive. Attitudes and performance with respect to the primary care gatekeeper role are likely influenced more by contextual factors such as location and type of facility than by personal factors. Efforts to address contextual issues could include improvements in practice standards for privately practising physicians and public information campaigns about gatekeeping regulations. Such efforts will be crucial to improving the gatekeeper role of primary care in Indonesia and assuring efficient access to high-quality care for all.
| S-EPMC7780672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) have a key role in cancer detection as the usual first point of contact for patients with potential cancer symptoms. Nevertheless, there is limited work that investigates their perceptions of their role in the early detection of cancer. To address this gap, we aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of cancer diagnosis from the perspective of GPs.MethodsIndividual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 55 GPs from the North and North East of England and Greater London. All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed verbatim. Repeated reading and co-coding engendered systematic thematic analysis across the interview material.ResultsThree main themes emerged from the analysis of our data. First, we identified the burden of early cancer detection in general practice, both related to the anxiety and symptoms patients bring to GPs and the need for GPs to recognise patterns of cancer symptoms and refer appropriately; second, this burden is intensified by a perceived fragmentation of services within the National Health Service (NHS); and third, it is made more complex by the interface between general practice and public health.ConclusionsGPs occupy a challenging but pivotal role in cancer detection. It is crucial that this role be supported by policy and research.
| S-EPMC4385975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeOur purpose was to assess the terminology used to describe the different oncologic subspecialties at academic institutions in the United States and determine whether the use of the term "oncologist" to describe a medical oncologist (MO) may affect the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer.Methods and materialsAn electronic survey was sent to chairs and program directors at all 94 academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. Questions assessed the terminology used to describe the oncologic subspecialties in their hospital's electronic medical record system, their views on how that terminology may affect referral patterns, and the perception of radiation oncologists' (ROs) role in patient care.ResultsResponses were received from 40 institutions (response rate, 42.6%). Fifteen percent of hospital electronic medical record systems used the term "oncology" instead of "medical oncology" (51%) or "hematology/oncology" (28%). Describing MOs simply as "oncologists" was thought to more likely affect patient views of MOs as the primary decision maker in their cancer care (mean Likert-type rating, 3.43) than it would affect the probability of up-front multidisciplinary referrals (mean Likert-type rating, 2.69). Patient perceptions of ROs as equal partners in care were thought to be less associated with the terminology used to describe MOs (mean Likert-type rating, 3.15) than the behavior of ROs in patient care (mean Likert-type rating, 4.65; P < .001), the attitude of MOs toward ROs (mean Likert-type rating, 4.59; P < .001), and the involvement of ROs in the initial new patient visits rather than a downstream referral (mean Likert-type rating, 3.95; P < .001).ConclusionsThe terminology used to describe MOs was thought to affect patient and provider perceptions of RO, but less so than other patient-provider interaction factors.
| S-EPMC8042774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal condition and the most frequent indication for spinal surgery in elderly people. General practitioners (GPs) are on the 1st line for its diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to assess how GPs diagnose and treat people with LSS in France.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey in a primary care setting. French GPs were selected by a random draw from the French Medical Board. The questionnaire was designed by 3 physicians specialized in physical and rehabilitation medicine and a resident in general practice. A provisional questionnaire was tested in a pilot survey of 11 French GPs. Participants' feedbacks served to build the final questionnaire. This latter was submitted by e-mail or mail to 330 GPs. GPs were surveyed about the 3 main domains relevant to the management of people with LSS in primary care: 1/ diagnosis, 2/ pharmacological treatments and 3/ non-pharmacological treatments, using self-administered open- and closed-ended questions and visual analog scales.ResultsOverall, 90/330 (27.3%) GPs completed the survey. 51/89 (57.3%) GPs were confident with managing people with LSS. Low back pain 51/87 (58.6%), neurogenic claudication 38/87 (43.7%) and paresthesia in the lower limbs 31/87 (35.6%) were the 3 most frequently cited clinical signs leading to the diagnosis of LSS. Improvement with lumbar flexion was mentioned by 9/87 (10.3%) GPs. 85/86 (98.8%) would consider prescribing lumbar imaging, 60/84 (71.4%) corticoid spinal injections and 42/79 (53.2%) would never prescribe lumbar flexion-based endurance training. All GPs would refer people with LSS to another specialist.ConclusionsFrench GPs lack confidence with diagnosing LSS and prescribing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people with LSS.
| S-EPMC6745066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn cancer care, a GP's work is rarely defined clearly. Our aim was to assess GPs' work with cancer patients in France and in Norway, where the roles of the GP and the organization of the system are rather different.FindingsA questionnaire with 40 closed-ended questions about GP involvement in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and terminal care was constructed and mailed to samples of GPs. The patients had seen the doctor at least once over the past year. In France 1679 and in Norway 386 individual patient questionnaires were completed. GPs have a major role in the diagnosis of cancer, and this role varies according to cancer type. The GPs participated actively in different phases of follow-up after cancer treatment. Low response rates do not allow direct comparison between countries, but higher PSA screening rates in France seem to increase the percentage of patients diagnosed after screening rather than after a clinical suspicion. Interaction between GPs and specialists during cancer treatment and follow-up was important in both countries.ConclusionBoth in France and in Norway GPs participate actively in cancer care. Early clinical diagnosis is a challenge. More research is needed about how GPs can improve their early diagnostic work. Organisational issues may influence cancer responsibilities for the GP, and national health systems should be challenged to look at possible new roles for GPs in cancer care. Medical training, both pre- and post-graduate, should prepare doctors for collaboration between primary and secondary care, particularly important in cancer care.
| S-EPMC2761931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:We previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:We investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use. RESULTS:A large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ?21?drinks/week (24%) and ?4?drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ?14?drinks/week (28%) and ?3?drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2?years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%). CONCLUSIONS:The large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations.
| S-EPMC5640000 | biostudies-literature