Table 1.
Outcomes
| Domain | Method of measurement | Metric | Time frame | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physician level | ||||
| Main outcome | Perceived consultation skill competency | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Weeks 7–30 |
| Perceived stress reaction | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Weeks 7–30 | |
| Further outcomes | Level of CIM knowledge in cancer care | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, multiple response | Enrollment, Week 6 |
| Expectations regarding the effectiveness of CIM | 5-point Likert scale | Fully agree to fully disagree | Enrollment, Week 6 |
|
| Expectations regarding the side effects of CIM | NRS | very safe (0) to not safe at all (10) | Enrollment, Week 6 |
|
| Personal attitude towards CIM | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Enrollment, Week 6 |
|
| Personal attitude towards CIM after knowing the results of the Situational Judgment Test that are based on expert ratings | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Week 6 | |
| Application of the project-developed communication manual about CIM in oncology | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, 1 response | Weeks 1–6 | |
| Handling challenges in consultations about CIM therapies | Situational Judgment Test | 5 options, 1 response | Enrollment, Week 6 |
|
| Implementability of the manual-based consultation in the treating oncology physicians’ daily work | 6-point Likert scale | Very good to not at all | Weeks 7–30, | |
| Duration of the CIM consultation | Time | Minutes | Weeks 7–30 | |
| Reasons for communications longer than 20 min | Open-ended question | Weeks 7–30 | ||
| Patient level | ||||
| Main outcomes | Communication between physician and patient. | EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 | Not at all (1) to fully agree (4) | Week 2 |
| Patient satisfaction | PS-CaTE | Not at all (1) to fully agree (5) | Week 2 | |
| Preparation for decision-making | PrepDM | Not at all (1) to very much (5) | Week 2 | |
| Further outcomes | Knowledge of CIM in cancer care | Multiple-choice questions | 5 options, 1 response | − t1, Week 2 |
| Use of the recommended reputable websites about CIM in cancer care and subjectively experiences usefulness of the website | NRS | Very helpful (0) to not helpful at all (10) | Week 2 | |
| Physician’s attitude towards CIM | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Week 2 | |
| Use of CIM and subjective therapeutic success | Multiple-choice questions | 3 options: positive, negative, not sure | Week 2 | |
| Physician-patient-interaction level | ||||
| Main outcomes | Performance during communication with standardized patients | NRS | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (10) | Week 7 |
| Interactive and communicative competencies | MAPI | Fully disagree (0) to fully agree (5) | Week 7 | |
CIM complementary and integrative medicine, EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 EORTC communication module, MAPI Munich Physician Patient Interaction Inventory, NRS numerical rating scale, PrepDM Preparation for Decision Making, PS-CaTE Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Education