PURPOSE: To explore the use of CAM (Complementary/Alternative Medicine) in a population of cancer patients undergoing antineoplastic therapy, and to compare differences in sociodemographics, quality of life, and psychological features between CAM users and non-users. METHODS: The study population was consecutive cancer patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment in three Piedmont cancer centers. Data were collected from anonymous questionnaires investigating CAM use or not, and what type if used, and sociodemographics, and through validated psychometric instruments to assess psychological features: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Mini Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale. RESULTS: Of the 288 evaluable patients, 52 (18.1%) reported using one or more types of CAM; the most often cited were herbs, special diets and body-based practices, such as plantar reflexology, chiropractic application, and massage. On quality of life assessment, CAM users scored lower than CAM non-users for physical wellbeing (P = 0.006); no significant differences emerged for anxiety and depression and coping styles. CONCLUSIONS: CAM use is less prevalent in northern Italy than in most other European countries. CAM users were found to have a lower quality of life than CAM non-users.
PURPOSE: To explore the use of CAM (Complementary/Alternative Medicine) in a population of cancerpatients undergoing antineoplastic therapy, and to compare differences in sociodemographics, quality of life, and psychological features between CAM users and non-users. METHODS: The study population was consecutive cancerpatients undergoing antineoplastic treatment in three Piedmont cancer centers. Data were collected from anonymous questionnaires investigating CAM use or not, and what type if used, and sociodemographics, and through validated psychometric instruments to assess psychological features: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Mini Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale. RESULTS: Of the 288 evaluable patients, 52 (18.1%) reported using one or more types of CAM; the most often cited were herbs, special diets and body-based practices, such as plantar reflexology, chiropractic application, and massage. On quality of life assessment, CAM users scored lower than CAM non-users for physical wellbeing (P = 0.006); no significant differences emerged for anxiety and depression and coping styles. CONCLUSIONS:CAM use is less prevalent in northern Italy than in most other European countries. CAM users were found to have a lower quality of life than CAM non-users.
Authors: G Traversa; M Maggini; F Menniti-Ippolito; P Bruzzi; F Chiarotti; D Greco; S Spila-Alegiani; R Raschetti; G Benagiano Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Wen Hann Chow; Pearlly Chang; Soo Chin Lee; Alvin Wong; Han Ming Shen; Helena Marieke Verkooijen Journal: Ann Acad Med Singapore Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: A Molassiotis; P Fernández-Ortega; D Pud; G Ozden; J A Scott; V Panteli; A Margulies; M Browall; M Magri; S Selvekerova; E Madsen; L Milovics; I Bruyns; G Gudmundsdottir; S Hummerston; A M-A Ahmad; N Platin; N Kearney; E Patiraki Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ana Camila Callado Alfano; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Fernanda Capella Rugno; Raquel Haas da Silva; Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Stephanie J Sohl; Kathryn E Weaver; Gurjeet Birdee; Erin E Kent; Suzanne C Danhauer; Ann S Hamilton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mahlagha Dehghan; Fatemeh Sadat Hoseini; Fatemeh Mohammadi Akbarabadi; Zahra Fooladi; Mohammad Ali Zakeri Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 3.359