HYPOTHESIS: Self-reported use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been shown to increase following a cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer survivors are the heaviest users among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prevalence estimate of CAM use varied according to classification of CAM. The authors used a comprehensive system to classify CAM users and test differences in demographic, lifestyle, quality of life, and cancer characteristics among them. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 2562 breast cancer survivors participating in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study, aged 28 to 74 years. A structured telephone interview assessed CAM use, questioning about specific CAM practices, and whether use was related to cancer. This study examined CAM use in relation to demographics, health behaviors, and quality of life. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the women used CAM for general purposes but only 50% reported CAM use for cancer purposes. Visual imagery, spiritual healing, and meditation were the most frequently used practices for cancer purposes. CAM use, defined as consulting a CAM practitioner and regular use, was significantly related to younger age, higher education, increased fruit and vegetable intake, and lower body mass index (P < .05). CAM users who had seen a practitioner were also more likely to report poor physical and mental health than non-CAM users (P < .05). CAM use was not associated with changes in physical and mental health between study baseline and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study addressed important differences in the classification of CAM use among breast cancer survivors. Future studies need to further test the potential benefits and risks associated with CAM use.
HYPOTHESIS: Self-reported use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been shown to increase following a cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer survivors are the heaviest users among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prevalence estimate of CAM use varied according to classification of CAM. The authors used a comprehensive system to classify CAM users and test differences in demographic, lifestyle, quality of life, and cancer characteristics among them. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were 2562 breast cancer survivors participating in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study, aged 28 to 74 years. A structured telephone interview assessed CAM use, questioning about specific CAM practices, and whether use was related to cancer. This study examined CAM use in relation to demographics, health behaviors, and quality of life. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the women used CAM for general purposes but only 50% reported CAM use for cancer purposes. Visual imagery, spiritual healing, and meditation were the most frequently used practices for cancer purposes. CAM use, defined as consulting a CAM practitioner and regular use, was significantly related to younger age, higher education, increased fruit and vegetable intake, and lower body mass index (P < .05). CAM users who had seen a practitioner were also more likely to report poor physical and mental health than non-CAM users (P < .05). CAM use was not associated with changes in physical and mental health between study baseline and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study addressed important differences in the classification of CAM use among breast cancer survivors. Future studies need to further test the potential benefits and risks associated with CAM use.
Authors: Catherine Buettner; Candyce H Kroenke; Russell S Phillips; Roger B Davis; David M Eisenberg; Michelle D Holmes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Alfred I Neugut; Laura Falci; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Donna Buono; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Janise M Roh; Isaac J Ergas; Marilyn L Kwan; Marion Lee; Wei Yann Tsai; Zaixing Shi; Lois Lamerato; Lawrence H Kushi; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Linda K Larkey; Denise J Roe; Karen L Weihs; Roger Jahnke; Ana Maria Lopez; Carol E Rogers; Byeongsang Oh; Jose Guillen-Rodriguez Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2015-04
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha Cohen; Gary Deng; Dawn Hershman; Matthew Mumber; Jane Perlmutter; Dugald Seely; Ananda Sen; Suzanna M Zick; Debu Tripathy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2014-11
Authors: Julienne E Bower; Alexandra D Crosswell; Annette L Stanton; Catherine M Crespi; Diana Winston; Jesusa Arevalo; Jeffrey Ma; Steve W Cole; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rayna Kim Matsuno; Ian S Pagano; Gertraud Maskarinec; Brian F Issell; Carolyn C Gotay Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Sikai Song; Andrew J Cohen; Hansen Lui; Nnenaya A Mmonu; Hartley Brody; German Patino; Aron Liaw; Christi Butler; Kirkpatrick B Fergus; Jorge Mena; Austin Lee; Jeremy Weiser; Kelly Johnson; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 4.553