PubMed · 11729565
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Scott. Creating a learning environment: a win-win approach.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11729565/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Genetic testing for an inherited susceptibility to cancer is an emerging technology in medical practice. Little information is currently available about physicians' attitudes toward these tests. To assess US physicians' opinions on unresolved issues surrounding genetic testing, a 15-min survey was administered to a stratified random sample of 1,251 physicians from 8 specialties, selected from a file of all licensed physicians in the US (response rate = 71.0%). Dependent measures included physicians' attitudes toward genetic counseling and testing qualifications, availability of guidelines, patient confidentiality and insurance discrimination issues, and clinical utility of genetic tests. More than 89% of physicians reported a need for physician guidelines, 81% thought that patients with positive genetic test results are at risk for insurance discrimination, and more than 53% thought that it was difficult to ensure the confidentiality of test results. Almost 25% indicated that genetic tests for cancer susceptibility have too many inaccurate or ambiguous results; nearly 75% thought that clear guidelines are not available for managing patients with positive test results. Only 29% of physicians reported feeling qualified to provide genetic counseling to their patients. More than 84% of oncologists considered themselves qualified to recommend genetic testing to their patients compared with 40% of primary care physicians (PCPs), and 57% of tertiary care physicians (TCPs). US physicians expressed great uncertainty about issues surrounding genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Results of this national survey underscore the need to provide physicians with clear guidelines on the use of genetic cancer susceptibility tests and effective medical training on their appropriate implementation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing worldwide because of the growing public interest in natural or holistic therapies and because of the flow of information through the Internet. However, there is a lack of communication between cancer patients and their physicians on topics relating to CAM. The authors performed a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes of Japanese clinical oncologists toward cancer CAM. METHODS: The CAM questionnaires were sent to 2118 clinical oncologists. The questionnaires gathered data on background (age, gender, years in practice, specialty, and knowledge of cancer CAM), perception (effectiveness/ineffectiveness, scientific evidence, and drug interactions), and attitude (experience with and response to CAM users). Questions about oncologists' perceptions and attitudes to CAM were limited to herbs and other natural products that were sold over the counter. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six questionnaires were returned as undeliverable. Of the remaining questionnaires, 751 were returned (a response rate of 39%). Two-thirds of the responders were surgical oncologists and most of the remaining responders were medical oncologists. The majority of oncologists (82%) believed that CAM products were ineffective against cancer. The main reason for this belief was a lack of reliable information (as cited by 85% of oncologists). Only 13% of oncologists had experienced CAM-associated disease improvement in their cancer patients. Of all the oncologists, 84% considered the possibility of drug interactions between anticancer drugs and CAM products. The majority of oncologists (80%) replied that they could neither promote the use of CAM products nor recommend quitting the products, when they were asked about the use of CAM products by cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Negative perceptions of CAM products persist among clinical oncologists. A lack of proven effectiveness of CAM products and concerns about drug interactions with anticancer treatment suggest a need for both accurate information on CAM products and clinical trials.