↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Attitudes and knowledge about direct and indirect risks among conventional and complementary health care providers in cancer care
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2106-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trine Stub, Sara A. Quandt, Thomas A. Arcury, Joanne C. Sandberg, Agnete E. Kristoffersen

Abstract

Many complementary therapies offer benefits for patients with cancer. Others may be risky for patients due to negative interactions with conventional treatment and adverse effects. Therefore, cancer patients need guidance from health care providers to assess complementary modalities appropriately to receive benefits and avoid harm. In a self-administered questionnaire-based cross-sectional study, we compared knowledge and attitudes of health care providers with no training in complementary modalities to that of health care providers with training in complementary modalities about the risks for patients who combine complementary modalities with conventional treatment in cancer care. The analysis was based on responses from 466 participants. The attitudes and knowledge about direct risk followed provider specialty. Ninety-four percent of the medical doctors, 93% of the nurses, and 87% of the providers with dual training, but 70% of the complementary therapists, believed that complementary modalities can cause adverse effects (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors and nurses believed that it is risky to combine complementary and conventional cancer treatments (78% and 93%, respectively), compared to 58% of the providers with dual training and 43% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). Eighty-nine percent of the medical doctors and nurses believed that complementary modalities should be subjected to more scientific testing before being accepted by conventional health care providers, in contrast to 56% of the dually trained and 57% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors (61%) and nurses (55%) would have neither discouraged nor encouraged the use of complementary modalities if patients asked them for advice. Moreover, less than 1% of the complementary therapists would have discouraged the use of conventional cancer treatments. The study participants believed that the most important factor to recommend a complementary cancer modality to patients is evidence for safety. The health care providers in this study believed that complementary modalities are associated with direct risk and can cause adverse effects, and that it is risky to combine conventional and complementary treatments due to potential harmful interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 26 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 28 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,295,578
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#672
of 3,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,932
of 440,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#27
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.