OBJECTIVES: Previous research on complementary therapy use in populations of patients with breast cancer has failed to differentiate among the different types of therapies and utilization patterns, resulting in wide discrepancies in prevalence rates. The purpose of this study was to develop more refined and rigorous estimates of the prevalence of complementary therapy use in women with breast cancer and their level of commitment to complementary therapy. DESIGN AND SAMPLE/ SETTING: Using a cross-sectional, retrospective survey design, a random sample of 334 women with breast cancer was drawn from a Canadian provincial cancer registry. Using an intensive therapy inventory, women were asked to indicate the therapies and practices they had used since cancer diagnosis, frequency of use, amount of effort associated with using each therapy, and financial cost of therapy use. RESULTS: A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer were found to be using complementary therapies, with between 19.5% (most conservative estimate) and 79.9% (liberal estimate) of the women reporting the use of at least one complementary therapy following diagnosis. While the majority of therapies were used on a daily basis, a minimal amount of effort and finances was expended on complementary therapy use. Using two-way cluster analysis, two homogenous groups of complementary therapy users were identified based on level of commitment to complementary therapy use. Women with a low commitment to complementary therapy use comprised 73.9% of the sample and were more likely to be older and report less education than women with a moderate-to-high commitment to complementary therapy use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of complementary therapies by women with breast cancer warrants more precise measurement to accurately capture the types of complementary therapies used and the level of commitment to complementary therapy use. The findings of this study point to the value of the concept of commitment in identifying individuals willing to commit substantial time, energy and financial resources to complementary therapy use.
OBJECTIVES: Previous research on complementary therapy use in populations of patients with breast cancer has failed to differentiate among the different types of therapies and utilization patterns, resulting in wide discrepancies in prevalence rates. The purpose of this study was to develop more refined and rigorous estimates of the prevalence of complementary therapy use in women with breast cancer and their level of commitment to complementary therapy. DESIGN AND SAMPLE/ SETTING: Using a cross-sectional, retrospective survey design, a random sample of 334 women with breast cancer was drawn from a Canadian provincial cancer registry. Using an intensive therapy inventory, women were asked to indicate the therapies and practices they had used since cancer diagnosis, frequency of use, amount of effort associated with using each therapy, and financial cost of therapy use. RESULTS: A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer were found to be using complementary therapies, with between 19.5% (most conservative estimate) and 79.9% (liberal estimate) of the women reporting the use of at least one complementary therapy following diagnosis. While the majority of therapies were used on a daily basis, a minimal amount of effort and finances was expended on complementary therapy use. Using two-way cluster analysis, two homogenous groups of complementary therapy users were identified based on level of commitment to complementary therapy use. Women with a low commitment to complementary therapy use comprised 73.9% of the sample and were more likely to be older and report less education than women with a moderate-to-high commitment to complementary therapy use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of complementary therapies by women with breast cancer warrants more precise measurement to accurately capture the types of complementary therapies used and the level of commitment to complementary therapy use. The findings of this study point to the value of the concept of commitment in identifying individuals willing to commit substantial time, energy and financial resources to complementary therapy use.
Authors: Laura Weeks; Dugald Seely; Cathy DeGrasse; Shailendra Verma; Heather Boon; Marja Verhoef; Dawn Stacey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: L C Weeks; D Seely; L G Balneaves; H S Boon; A Leis; D Oneschuk; S M Sagar; M J Verhoef Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Lynda G Balneaves; Tracy L O Truant; Mary Kelly; Marja J Verhoef; B Joyce Davison Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-07-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: John Baptist Asiimwe; Prakash B Nagendrappa; Esther C Atukunda; Mauda M Kamatenesi; Grace Nambozi; Casim U Tolo; Patrick E Ogwang; Ahmed M Sarki Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 2.650