Fostering the Conversation About Complementary Medicine: Acceptability and Usefulness of Two Communication-Supporting Tools for Patients with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both patients and providers experience barriers to discussing complementary medicine during oncology consultations. This study describes the development of two communication tools-a question prompt sheet and a visual slideshow-and aims to evaluate their acceptability, perceived usefulness, and intention to use among patients with cancer. Nine (former) patients with breast cancer were involved in the development of the tools as co-researchers. The 15-item evaluation questionnaire was completed by 144 participants recruited from three Dutch hospitals, a patient panel, and the Dutch Breast Cancer Society. The tools' content and layout were generally acceptable, although suggestions were made to include items on exercise and diet in the question prompt sheet. About half of the participants found the tools useful, while the other half felt they were unnecessary, either because they could already discuss complementary medicine with their healthcare provider or had no interest in the topic. The tools were considered particularly helpful for fellow patients. The tools were well received though minor modifications were suggested. The lack of perceived need by half of the participants may have influenced the results. For effective use of the tools, it is important to identify patients who need extra support in discussing complementary medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".