PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to assess the frequency, types, and potential determinants of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, and consideration of CAM use, collected from parents with children during the palliative phase of disease. METHODS: Eligible parent respondents were identified by their primary care team. Demographic information and questionnaires were completed by the parent in the presence of a research nurse (DT). We conducted univariate logistic regression to identify predictors of parents who considered CAM use and children who actually used CAM. Descriptions of types of CAM were categorized according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 77 parents participated. Only 22 children (29%) had received some type of CAM, with 42 parents (55%) having considered its use for their child. Whole medical systems (n = 17) and biologically based therapies (n = 15) were the most frequently considered CAM, with whole medical systems (n = 6) being the most frequently used CAM. Family and disease variables were not indicative of CAM use. However, parents with higher education and those with a family member with cancer were more likely to consider CAM use, while parents were less likely to consider CAM as children were farther from time of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides initial insight into CAM use, and consideration of use, in children with cancer receiving palliative care. Further research is required to determine if the gap between CAM use and consideration is important, why this gap exists, and whether CAM has beneficial effects in this population.
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to assess the frequency, types, and potential determinants of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, and consideration of CAM use, collected from parents with children during the palliative phase of disease. METHODS: Eligible parent respondents were identified by their primary care team. Demographic information and questionnaires were completed by the parent in the presence of a research nurse (DT). We conducted univariate logistic regression to identify predictors of parents who considered CAM use and children who actually used CAM. Descriptions of types of CAM were categorized according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 77 parents participated. Only 22 children (29%) had received some type of CAM, with 42 parents (55%) having considered its use for their child. Whole medical systems (n = 17) and biologically based therapies (n = 15) were the most frequently considered CAM, with whole medical systems (n = 6) being the most frequently used CAM. Family and disease variables were not indicative of CAM use. However, parents with higher education and those with a family member with cancer were more likely to consider CAM use, while parents were less likely to consider CAM as children were farther from time of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides initial insight into CAM use, and consideration of use, in children with cancer receiving palliative care. Further research is required to determine if the gap between CAM use and consideration is important, why this gap exists, and whether CAM has beneficial effects in this population.
Authors: Alfred Laengler; Claudia Spix; Georg Seifert; Sven Gottschling; Norbert Graf; Peter Kaatsch Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Felicity L Bishop; Philip Prescott; Yean Koon Chan; Jemma Saville; Erik von Elm; George T Lewith Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: G Masera; J J Spinetta; M Jankovic; A R Ablin; G J D'Angio; J Van Dongen-Melman; T Eden; A G Martins; R K Mulhern; D Oppenheim; R Topf; M A Chesler Journal: Med Pediatr Oncol Date: 1999-01
Authors: Germán Velez-Florez; María Camila Velez-Florez; Jose Oscar Mantilla-Rivas; Liliana Patarroyo-Rodríguez; Rodrigo Borrero-León; Santiago Rodríguez-León Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 5.285
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: Briony F Hudson; Linda Jm Oostendorp; Bridget Candy; Victoria Vickerstaff; Louise Jones; Monica Lakhanpaul; Myra Bluebond-Langner; Paddy Stone Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Kavita D Chandwani; Julie L Ryan; Luke J Peppone; Michelle M Janelsins; Lisa K Sprod; Katie Devine; Lara Trevino; Jennifer Gewandter; Gary R Morrow; Karen M Mustian Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 2.629