Abstract
ObjectiveTo survey websites of oncologists and non-medical practitioners (NMPs) in Germany regarding range of treated symptoms, diagnostic tools and therapies offered to cancer patients as well as the quality of websites. MethodsAnalysis of 98 websites of oncologists and NMPs was conducted between April and July 2018 with a standardized tool. ResultsRange of diagnostic and therapeutic methods was high and differed between both groups. Many NMPs (65.3%) intended to support conventional therapy rather than to treat cancer. Most oncologists (85.7%) did not mention the role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Texts on oncologists’ websites, showed high complexity according to readability analysis using LIX score as opposed to those on NMPs websites that showed medium complexity. Only small difference of quality of websites between both groups could be detected. ConclusionMethods not acknowledged by evidence-based medicine as well as methods at risk for interaction with conventional cancer therapy but also treatment offers with potential benefits for cancer patients were found on NMPs websites. Practice implicationsAs evidence-based CAM methods can be a useful support of cancer treatment, risk of herb drug interactions can be minimized by oncologists offering reasonable CAM.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
