Integrative oncology in cancer care - implementation factors: mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Integrative oncology (IO) appears to be beneficial to patients with cancer, but its implementation remains a challenge. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model, this systematic review identified the barriers to and facilitators of IO implementation in conventional cancer care settings. METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases from their inception until February 2022 for qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods empirical studies reporting the implementation outcomes for IO services. Critical appraisal approach was tailored according to study types. The identified implementation barriers and facilitators were mapped onto TDF domains and the COM-B model, and subsequently onto the behavioural change wheel (BCW) for formulating behavioural change interventions. RESULTS: We included 28 studies (11 qualitative, 6 quantitative, 9 mixed-methods and 2 Delphi studies) of satisfied methodological quality. The main implementation barriers were the lack of IO knowledge, the absence of funding and healthcare professionals' low level of IO receptiveness. The key implementation facilitators were the dissemination of evidence on IO clinical benefits, the equipping of professionals with IO service delivery skills and the provision of a supportive organisational climate. CONCLUSION: Multifaceted implementation strategies are needed to address the determinants influencing IO service delivery. Based on our BCW-based analysis of the included studies, the key behavioural change techniques are: (1) educating healthcare professionals about the value and application of traditional and complementary medicine; (2) ensuring access to actionable clinical evidence on IO effectiveness and safety and (3) designing guidelines on communicating traditional and complementary medicine interventions with patients and caregivers for biomedically trained doctors and nurses.

A retrospective study of preimplantation embryos diagnosed with monosomy by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

This report is a retrospective study of preimplantation embryos diagnosed with monosomy for chromosomes 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y on day 3 to determine the rate of true positives, false positives and/or mosaicism and to assess if these embryos are suitable for in vitro fertilization (IVF) transfer. In a one year period, 80 patients went through preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening (PGD-AS). Monosomy was diagnosed in 51 embryos. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was then performed on the blastomeres at day 5-7 with commercially available probes using the same probe set that initially identified monosomy for chromosomes 13, 16, 21 and 22 or chromosomes 15, 18, X and Y. Based on FISH analysis, the monosomy diagnosed during routine PGD-AS analysis was confirmed in 17 of the 51 embryos. A euploid result for the specific chromosomes tested was observed in 16 of the 51 embryos while mosaicism was found in the remaining 18 embryos. This results in an estimated false positive rate of 3.8% for a diagnosis of monosomy. Reanalysis of these embryos demonstrates that the majority of monosomy diagnoses represents true monosomy or mosaicism and should be excluded for transfer in IVF. Furthermore, improved understanding from recent emerging data regarding the fate of oocytes in women with advanced maternal age undergoing IVF to the development of early embryos may provide a valuable insight into the mechanism of chromosome mosaicism.