Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Dec;19(6):e436-61.
doi: 10.3747/co.19.1182.

A systematic review of integrative oncology programs

Affiliations

A systematic review of integrative oncology programs

D M Seely et al. Curr Oncol. 2012 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review set out to summarize the research literature describing integrative oncology programs.

Methods: Searches were conducted of 9 electronic databases, relevant journals (hand searched), and conference abstracts, and experts were contacted. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts for reports describing examples of programs that combine complementary and conventional cancer care. English-, French-, and German-language articles were included, with no date restriction. From the articles located, descriptive data were extracted according to 6 concepts: description of article, description of clinic, components of care, administrative structure, process of care, and measurable outcomes used.

Results: Of the 29 programs included, most were situated in the United States (n = 12, 41%) and England (n = 10, 34%). More than half (n = 16, 55%) operate within a hospital, and 7 (24%) are community-based. Clients come through patient self-referral (n = 15, 52%) and by referral from conventional health care providers (n = 9, 31%) and from cancer agencies (n = 7, 24%). In 12 programs (41%), conventional care is provided onsite; 7 programs (24%) collaborate with conventional centres to provide integrative care. Programs are supported financially through donations (n = 10, 34%), cancer agencies or hospitals (n = 7, 24%), private foundations (n = 6, 21%), and public funds (n = 3, 10%). Nearly two thirds of the programs maintain a research (n = 18, 62%) or evaluation (n = 15, 52%) program.

Conclusions: The research literature documents a growing number of integrative oncology programs. These programs share a common vision to provide whole-person, patient-centred care, but each program is unique in terms of its structure and operational model.

Keywords: Complementary medicine; cancer; health systems; integrative medicine; integrative oncology; oncology; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
prisma diagram of article flow throughout the systematic review
Figure 2
Figure 2
Complementary therapies offered within integrative oncology programs. Other therapies offered within 2 or fewer programs, and not represented in this figure, include dance therapy, herbal medicine, integrative medicine consultations, life coaching, relationship counselling, naturopathic medicine, Pilates, biofeedback, sound therapy, machine therapy, chiropractic, electrochemical therapies, enemas, healing garden, hyperthermia, orthobionomy, physiotherapy, quartz crystal bowls, Tibetan bowls, special baths, and Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Components of care and organizational structure within integrative oncology programs. nr = not reported.

References

    1. Astin JA, Reilly C, Perkins C, Child WL, on behalf of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Breast cancer patients’ perspectives on and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a study by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. J Soc Integr Oncol. 2006;4:157–69. doi: 10.2310/7200.2006.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL, Hislop TG, Herbert C. Levels of commitment: exploring complementary therapy use by women with breast cancer. J Altern Complement Med. 2006;12:459–66. doi: 10.1089/acm.2006.12.459. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eng J, Ramsum D, Verhoef M, Guns E, Davison J, Gallagher R. A population-based survey of complementary and alternative medicine use in men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2003;2:212–16. doi: 10.1177/1534735403256207. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Molassiotis A, Fernadez–Ortega P, Pud D, et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:655–63. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi110. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gansler T, Kaw C, Crammer C, Smith T. A population-based study of prevalence of complementary methods use by cancer survivors: a report from the American Cancer Society’s studies of cancer survivors. Cancer. 2008;113:1048–57. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23659. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources