ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Evaluating the outcomes and patient experience of group and individual acupuncture in an NHS cancer care setting: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Retrospective Assessment of Symptom Reduction With Group Acupuncture at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcupuncture for cancer care is safe and effective and can be provided in group or individual settings. Previously, group acupuncture (GA) has been compared with individual acupuncture (IA) for specific cancer-related symptoms or patient experience, but has not correlated symptoms with patient experience between GA and IA. This service evaluation, using a mixed-methods design, aimed to compare GA with IA for symptom-related outcomes, and patients experience and explore their inter-relationships, in order to inform future development of the service.
methodsCancer patients referred to the acupuncture service in a UK NHS hospital received six treatments of GA or IA. Outcomes were gathered using Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment. Experience of acupuncture was gathered post-treatment using a questionnaire and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsForty-eight participants' data were analysed. There were statistically significant improvements in outcomes overall, with no difference between GA and IA. Most participants had a positive experience; IA participants focused more on the relationship with their acupuncturist, whilst GA participants focused more on environmental factors. For a few GA participants, the group experience was negative, but data synthesis revealed this did not impact symptom-related outcomes.
conclusionIn both GA and IA arms, symptom-related outcomes mostly improved alongside a positive experience. For those participants for whom GA was not an ideal setting, there was no effect on symptom-related outcomes. These results may be of relevance when establishing acupuncture services in supportive cancer care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39930107What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.