Pseudoscience in Cancer Services; a survey of National Health Service Trusts in England
Rose, L.
Show abstract
BackgroundScientifically implausible treatments are offered by some hospital cancer departments. Examples are reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology. Salaried practitioners are employed to deliver these therapies, which are provided as palliative care, although they lack evidence of effectiveness. Such practices seem to conflict with efforts to make health care evidence based. AimTo estimate the extent of certain pseudoscientific practices in NHS Trusts, and to evaluate the rationale for such provision. DesignRelevant documents were requested from NHS Trusts under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Main outcome measures were: number of trusts offering pseudoscientific practices in cancer departments, time to full FOIA response, presence and content of practice governance documents, and presence and quality of evidence for practices. Setting/ParticipantsCancer care departments in NHS hospitals in England. No patient participants were involved in the survey. Results13.6% of eligible NHS trusts were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices. No trust provided a valid business case, or any robust evidence for the practices. The governance documents included claims about chakras, meridians, and invisible "energy". Ten trusts required that informed consent be obtained from patients. This could not have been obtained because information given was misleading. ConclusionsPseudoscientific practices are embedded in the NHS in England, and governance documents show poor understanding of clinical evidence.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding and addressing challenges for Advance Care Planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services 94%
- ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’: Specialist palliative care service innovation and practice change in response to COVID-19. Results from a multi-national survey (CovPall) 94%
- Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Impact on Staff of Providing Non-Invasive Advanced Respiratory Support During the Covid-19 Pandemic A Qualitative Study in an Acute Hospital 93%
- Adverse event reviews in healthcare: What matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family 93%
- Which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for capturing and measuring doctor well-being? A Delphi study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Beyond social prescribing - the use of social return on investment (SROI) analysis in integrated health and social care interventions in England and Wales: a protocol for a systematic review 93%
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 93%
- STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study Protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 94%
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 92%
- A mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.