PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore prostate cancer patients 'perceptions, feelings, ideas, and experiences regarding making decisions to use (or not use) complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted with 29 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Content analysis of the verbatim transcripts was used to identify key themes in the data. FINDINGS: Decision making about CAM treatments appears to depend on both fixed (e.g., disease characteristics, demographic characteristics, and medical history) and flexible (e.g., perceptions of CAM and conventional medicine, experiences with the health care system and health care practitioners, and perceptions about the need for control or action) decision factors. CONCLUSIONS: The participants in this study appeared more likely to be "pushed" toward using CAM by negative experiences with the health care system than to be "pulled" toward CAM by perceptions about its safety or congruence with their beliefs about health and illness.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore prostate cancerpatients 'perceptions, feelings, ideas, and experiences regarding making decisions to use (or not use) complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted with 29 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Content analysis of the verbatim transcripts was used to identify key themes in the data. FINDINGS: Decision making about CAM treatments appears to depend on both fixed (e.g., disease characteristics, demographic characteristics, and medical history) and flexible (e.g., perceptions of CAM and conventional medicine, experiences with the health care system and health care practitioners, and perceptions about the need for control or action) decision factors. CONCLUSIONS: The participants in this study appeared more likely to be "pushed" toward using CAM by negative experiences with the health care system than to be "pulled" toward CAM by perceptions about its safety or congruence with their beliefs about health and illness.
Authors: Sarah B Brien; Felicity L Bishop; Kirsty Riggs; David Stevenson; Victoria Freire; George Lewith Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Cara L McDermott; David K Blough; Catherine R Fedorenko; Neeraj K Arora; Steven B Zeliadt; Megan E Fairweather; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lynda G Balneaves; Cody Z Watling; Emilie N Hayward; Brenda Ross; Jill Taylor-Brown; Antony Porcino; Tracy L O Truant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Vinjar Fønnebø; Sameline Grimsgaard; Harald Walach; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Arne Johan Norheim; Hugh MacPherson; George Lewith; Laila Launsø; Mary Koithan; Torkel Falkenberg; Heather Boon; Mikel Aickin Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-11 Impact factor: 4.615