BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Self-reported use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients varies widely between studies, possibly because the definition of a CAM user is not comparable. This makes it difficult to compare studies. The aim of this study is to present a six-level model for classifying patients' reported exposure to CAM. Prayer, physical exercise, special diets, over-the-counter products/CAM techniques, and personal visits to a CAM practitioner are successively removed from the model in a reductive fashion. METHODS: By applying the model to responses given by Norwegian patients with cancer, we found that 72% use CAM if the user was defined to include all types of CAM. This proportion was reduced successively to only 11% in the same patient group when a CAM user was defined as a user visiting a CAM practitioner four or more times. When considering a sample of 10 recently published studies of CAM use among patients with breast cancer, we found 98% use when the CAM user was defined to include all sorts of CAM. This proportion was reduced successively to only 20% when a CAM user was defined as a user of a CAM practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend future surveys of CAM use to report at more than one level and to clarify which intensity level of CAM use the report is based on.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Self-reported use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients varies widely between studies, possibly because the definition of a CAM user is not comparable. This makes it difficult to compare studies. The aim of this study is to present a six-level model for classifying patients' reported exposure to CAM. Prayer, physical exercise, special diets, over-the-counter products/CAM techniques, and personal visits to a CAM practitioner are successively removed from the model in a reductive fashion. METHODS: By applying the model to responses given by Norwegian patients with cancer, we found that 72% use CAM if the user was defined to include all types of CAM. This proportion was reduced successively to only 11% in the same patient group when a CAM user was defined as a user visiting a CAM practitioner four or more times. When considering a sample of 10 recently published studies of CAM use among patients with breast cancer, we found 98% use when the CAM user was defined to include all sorts of CAM. This proportion was reduced successively to only 20% when a CAM user was defined as a user of a CAM practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend future surveys of CAM use to report at more than one level and to clarify which intensity level of CAM use the report is based on.
Authors: Sara A Quandt; Marja J Verhoef; Thomas A Arcury; George T Lewith; Aslak Steinsbekk; Agnete E Kristoffersen; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler; Vinjar Fønnebø Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Andrea Saini; Alfredo Berruti; Serena Capogna; Manuela Negro; Erica Sguazzotti; Rocco Luigi Picci; Sara Campagna; Vincenzo Dongiovanni; Luigi Dogliotti; Pier Maria Furlan; Luca Ostacoli Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Juliann Saquib; Lisa Madlensky; Sheila Kealey; Nazmus Saquib; Loki Natarajan; Vicky A Newman; Ruth E Patterson; John P Pierce Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.279