New Tool Assesses Integrative Oncology Competencies in Trainees

Cultivating Competency in Integrative Oncology

As cancer care increasingly incorporates complementary therapies and psychosocial support, the need for clinicians skilled in these areas has become more pronounced [1, 2, 3]. Delivering complex interventions with fidelity, especially in palliative care, requires structured training and reliable methods for assessing provider competence [4, 5]. While educational programs, including simulation-based learning, have been developed to build clinical skills and confidence in oncology, a persistent challenge has been the lack of standardized tools to evaluate whether healthcare professionals have truly mastered the necessary competencies before they begin specialized practice [6, 7]. A recent study addresses this gap by developing and validating an instrument for assessing core competencies in integrative oncology.

Addressing the Need for Standardized Assessment

The effective implementation of clinical integrative oncology (IO) guidelines is contingent upon the adequate training of healthcare providers (HCPs). To ensure that clinicians can safely and effectively integrate complementary therapies into conventional cancer care, educational programs require a reliable method to measure baseline proficiency. Without such a tool, it is difficult to identify knowledge gaps or tailor training to individual needs. The primary objective of a new study was therefore to develop and conduct a preliminary validation of a questionnaire, named the Core Clinical Integrative Oncology Competencies (CCC-IO), specifically designed to assess these foundational skills among HCP trainees prior to their entry into an intensive IO training program.

Questionnaire Development and Study Design

The Core Clinical Integrative Oncology Competencies (CCC-IO) questionnaire was developed by an international, multi-disciplinary team to evaluate 20 trainee-perceived competencies across five key domains: Risks and Contraindications, Intercultural Challenges, Data Mining for Herbal Medicine, Anxiety Relief using Mind-Body Practices, and Acupressure for Pain Relief. The instrument's performance was examined in a cross-sectional study nested within a larger randomized controlled trial of a national competency-based medical education (CBME) training program. Trainees were randomized into three arms: a CBME-focused training group, a Clerkship group observing clinical IO practices, and a control group of candidates for future training. To evaluate the questionnaire's psychometric properties, the researchers used two standard statistical methods. Reliability, or the tool's internal consistency, was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Validity was assessed with a preliminary exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a technique used to determine if the questionnaire's items group together into the intended conceptual domains.

Participant Demographics and Baseline Equivalence

A total of 109 completed pre-training questionnaires were collected, providing a solid foundation for the analysis. The participants were distributed across the three study arms, with 33 from the competency-based medical education (CBME) group, 30 from the Clerkship group, and 46 from the control group. A critical finding at this stage was that there were no significant between-group differences in socio-demographic characteristics, total domain scores, or overall scores for the 20 integrative oncology competencies. This baseline equivalence is important because it confirms that the randomization process was successful, creating comparable groups. Consequently, any differences in competency observed after the training interventions can be more confidently attributed to the training itself rather than pre-existing variations among the trainees.

Reliability and Validity Confirmed

The statistical analysis affirmed the structural integrity and consistency of the CCC-IO questionnaire. An exploratory factor analysis, a method used to uncover the underlying structure of a set of variables, confirmed that the questionnaire's items logically grouped into the five distinct, intended domains. Among these, the domain for Anxiety Relief using Mind-Body Practices showed the highest explanatory rate, accounting for 52.39% of the variance and indicating it is a particularly strong and coherent component of the assessment. The tool also demonstrated high reliability. Cronbach's Alpha, a measure of internal consistency, was strong across the board, with values for each domain ranging from 0.78 to 0.97. The overall Cronbach's Alpha for the entire cohort was 0.95 (CBME group, 0.94; Clerkship group, 0.92; controls, 0.97). These figures, well above the accepted threshold for clinical assessment tools, indicate that the questionnaire produces consistent and dependable measurements. Together, these results provide evidence for the CCC-IO's construct validity, meaning it measures what it intends to measure, and its high reliability.

Clinical Implications and Future Directions

The validation of the Core Clinical Integrative Oncology Competencies (CCC-IO) questionnaire provides a tangible tool for medical educators. The findings support the CCC-IO's use for baseline assessment of healthcare provider trainees' clinical competencies before they enter an intensive national integrative oncology training program. For clinicians and program directors, this means having a standardized method to identify specific knowledge and skill gaps at the outset. This allows for the customization of curricula to address weaknesses in domains such as acupressure for pain or data mining for herbal medicine, ultimately fostering a more proficient and well-rounded workforce. While the tool proved robust in this study, the authors suggest that future research needs to examine its use in other palliative care settings, cultures, and languages. Such work is necessary to confirm its utility across diverse clinical environments and patient populations, which would be a critical step toward its broader adoption and the standardization of integrative oncology training globally.

References

1. Chan RJ, Milch V, Crawford‐Williams F, et al. Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature. CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2023. doi:10.3322/caac.21788

2. Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implementation Science. 2018. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z

3. Mosquera I, Todd A, Balaj M, et al. Components and effectiveness of patient navigation programmes to increase participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review. Cancer Medicine. 2023. doi:10.1002/cam4.6050

4. Ang K, Hepgul N, Gao W, Higginson IJ. Strategies used in improving and assessing the level of reporting of implementation fidelity in randomised controlled trials of palliative care complex interventions: A systematic review. Palliative Medicine. 2017. doi:10.1177/0269216317717369

5. Zhu N, Liu Y, Wang X, et al. Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals implementing advance care planning for people suffering from life-limiting illness: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Palliative Care. 2023. doi:10.1186/s12904-023-01176-7

6. Usman FM, Jalal A, Bansal M, et al. The role of simulation in oncology nursing: A systematic review.. Nurse Education in Practice. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104466

7. Gui Y, Zhang C. Integrating psycho-oncology into medical physical education curricula: A systematic review of simulated patient-based exercise counseling. Psycho-Oncologie. 2026. doi:10.18282/po5488