Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Complementary therapies: evaluating their effectiveness in cancer.

R J Hilsden1, M J Verhoef

  • 1Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada. rhilsden@acs.ucalgary.ca

Patient Education and Counseling
|October 8, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Canadian integrative oncology research priorities: results of a consensus-building process.

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)·2013
Same author

Understanding coronary artery disease patients' decisions regarding the use of chelation therapy for coronary artery disease: descriptive decision modeling.

International journal of nursing studies·2012
Same author

Broadening horizons: Integrating quantitative and qualitative research.

The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses·2012
Same author

CAM information online: an audit of Internet information on the "Bill Henderson Protocol".

Complementary therapies in medicine·2010
Same author

Chiropractic treatment of patients younger than 18 years of age: Frequency, patterns and chiropractors' beliefs.

Paediatrics & child health·2010
Same author

Complementary therapies for cancer patients: assessing information use and needs.

Chronic diseases in Canada·2009
Same journal

Exploring surgical patients' health literacy following the use of a patient safety checklist - A qualitative study.

Patient education and counseling·2026
Same journal

Virga and the future of motivational interviewing: Issues in training counseling skills.

Patient education and counseling·2026
Same journal

Informed choices: Patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on high-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

Patient education and counseling·2026
Same journal

Factors influencing patients switching back to physical channels for health consultations.

Patient education and counseling·2026
Same journal

Challenges in advising people with severe mental illness to quit smoking: A conversation analysis of patient resistance.

Patient education and counseling·2026
Same journal

Alleviating the burden: The impact of interpersonal and digital communication on depressive symptoms in cancer survivors.

Patient education and counseling·2026
See all related articles

Evaluating complementary therapies for cancer requires adapting research methods. Standard randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not fully capture the individualized, holistic nature and subjective outcomes of these treatments.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Integrative Medicine
  • Clinical Research Methodology

Background:

  • Complementary therapies are widely used by cancer patients.
  • There is a significant lack of data regarding the safety and efficacy of many complementary therapies.
  • Standard research methods face challenges when evaluating these therapies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the challenges in evaluating complementary therapies in cancer care.
  • To emphasize the need for modified research methodologies suitable for complementary therapies.
  • To advocate for research approaches sensitive to the unique characteristics of complementary medicine.

Main Methods:

  • Discussion of limitations of traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for complementary therapies.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Exploration of the individualized and holistic nature of alternative approaches.
  • Consideration of factors like placebo effects and provider roles in treatment outcomes.

    • Main Results:

    • Standard RCTs are often ill-suited for evaluating highly individualized, holistic therapies.
    • Subjective patient outcomes are common in complementary therapy research, differing from objective measures like survival.
    • Existing research methods require adaptation to accurately assess complementary therapies.

    Conclusions:

    • Evaluating complementary therapies necessitates research designs sensitive to their unique properties.
    • Methodological adjustments are crucial for reliable assessment of safety and efficacy.
    • Future research must balance scientific rigor with the nuances of complementary medicine.