Abigail M Gross1, Qin Liu, Susan Bauer-Wu. 1. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY; Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Information on the use of complementary therapies in patients with advanced-stage cancer is limited. Given the disease and treatment complexities associated with the care of patients with metastatic cancer, oncology clinicians would benefit from having an appreciation of the extent of usage of unconventional, adjunctive therapies among these patients. This study evaluated the prevalence and demographic predictors of complementary therapy use in a sample of women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Subjects with stage IV breast cancer were recruited from six treatment facilities in New England. A written, mailed survey assessing complementary therapy use and sociodemographic information was completed by each subject, while disease and treatment information was obtained from medical records. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 173 participants, 78% used at least one type of complementary therapy, 43% used two or more types, and 23% used three or more types, excluding spiritual practices and physical exercise. When including spiritual practices and physical exercise, 90% used at least one complementary therapy, 70% used two or more types, and 45% used three or more types. Visits to alternative health practitioners were predicted by younger age (P = .009) and higher education level (P = .002). Younger participants (P = .045) were more likely to use and spend more money on vitamins and herbal products (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of unconventional therapies is pervasive among metastatic breast cancer patients, particularly among those who are younger and highly educated. Oncology providers need to assess patients' complementary therapy use and consider potential interactions with prescribed treatment protocols.
PURPOSE: Information on the use of complementary therapies in patients with advanced-stage cancer is limited. Given the disease and treatment complexities associated with the care of patients with metastatic cancer, oncology clinicians would benefit from having an appreciation of the extent of usage of unconventional, adjunctive therapies among these patients. This study evaluated the prevalence and demographic predictors of complementary therapy use in a sample of women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Subjects with stage IV breast cancer were recruited from six treatment facilities in New England. A written, mailed survey assessing complementary therapy use and sociodemographic information was completed by each subject, while disease and treatment information was obtained from medical records. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 173 participants, 78% used at least one type of complementary therapy, 43% used two or more types, and 23% used three or more types, excluding spiritual practices and physical exercise. When including spiritual practices and physical exercise, 90% used at least one complementary therapy, 70% used two or more types, and 45% used three or more types. Visits to alternative health practitioners were predicted by younger age (P = .009) and higher education level (P = .002). Younger participants (P = .045) were more likely to use and spend more money on vitamins and herbal products (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of unconventional therapies is pervasive among metastatic breast cancerpatients, particularly among those who are younger and highly educated. Oncology providers need to assess patients' complementary therapy use and consider potential interactions with prescribed treatment protocols.
Authors: Jennifer S Yates; Karen M Mustian; Gary R Morrow; Leslie J Gillies; Devi Padmanaban; James N Atkins; Brian Issell; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Lauren K Colman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cecile A Lengacher; Mary P Bennett; Kevin E Kip; Rosemary Keller; Melisa S LaVance; Lynette S Smith; Charles E Cox Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: H Boon; M Stewart; M A Kennard; R Gray; C Sawka; J B Brown; C McWilliam; A Gavin; R A Baron; D Aaron; T Haines-Kamka Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Grace K Dy; Lishan Bekele; Lorelei J Hanson; Alfred Furth; Sumithra Mandrekar; Jeff A Sloan; Alex A Adjei Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah M Rausch; Frankie Winegardner; Kelly M Kruk; Vaishali Phatak; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler; Brent Bauer; Ann Vincent Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jacob Hill; Ryan Seguin; Agness Manda; Maria Chikasema; Olivia Vaz; Quefeng Li; Hannan Yang; Satish Gopal; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: M Kalder; T Müller; D Fischer; A Müller; W Bader; M W Beckmann; C Brucker; C C Hack; V Hanf; A Hasenburg; A Hein; S Jud; M Kiechle; E Klein; D Paepke; A Rotmann; F Schütz; G Dobos; P Voiß; S Kümmel Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.915
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
Authors: Ji-Yeon Shin; So Young Kim; Boyoung Park; Jae-Hyun Park; Jin Young Choi; Hong Gwan Seo; Jong-Hyock Park Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2012-12-24 Impact factor: 2.629