Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 12, 2021Keywords:
Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publication rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Note: If you need to comply with your funding body policy, you can apply for the CC BY license after your manuscript is accepted for publication.
Main Article Content
A practice framework for the cooperative treatment of cancer between traditional health practitioners and radiation oncologists in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa
Pauline B. Nkosi
Maureen N. Sibiya
Abstract
Background: Cooperative practice between traditional health practitioners (THPs) and radiation oncologists (ROs) is crucial for the continuity of care in the treatment of patients with cancer. However, scant information exists on how to co-ordinate cooperation between these health practitioners without interrupting the treatment of the patients.
Aim: The study aimed to explore the practices of THPs and ROs in cancer treatment and ultimately derive a workable practice framework between these health practitioners in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province.
Setting: The study was conducted in selected districts, namely eThekwini, uThukela, Amajuba, uMkhanyakude, iLembe, uMzinyathi and uMgungundlovu, in KZN.
Methods: A qualitative study by using a descriptive phenomenological approach was conducted to collect data from 28 THPs involved in the treatment of cancer and four ROs from public oncology hospitals. Focus groups and one-on-one semi-structured interviews by using open-ended questions were conducted to collect data from THPs and ROs, respectively. Framework analysis was used for data analysis to identify themes.
Results: The study found that in KZN, THPs and ROs are working in parallel and that there are problems when patients seek cancer treatment from both health practitioners. Furthermore, the THPs and ROs work in an environment where there is no relationship, respect and trust, open communication and referral of patients by ROs to THPs. Both teams indicated that patients consult both traditional medicine (TM) and allopathic medicine (AM) by moving between the two health practitioners, resulting in interruptions in treatment. In addition, the study found that cooperation between THPs and ROs is understood as the provision of continuity care, where the parties work independently but share certain information of the patient on treatment, or as already being treated by each of them. The focus was on the type of relationship, enablers and common grounds for cooperation.
Conclusion: The workable cooperative practice framework could be an inclusive health system where the parties work in parallel, with the patient being the main actor in the collaboration.
