OBJECTIVE: Examine stability of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) of breast cancer patients, reasons for CAM use, and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological predictors of CAM use. METHODS: CAM use was assessed after adjuvant therapy and six months later. Following the CAM Healthcare Model, CAM use was divided into use of provider-directed (guided) and self-directed (self-help) CAM. Stability and reasons for CAM use were examined with McNemar's tests and descriptive statistics. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between predictors and CAM use were examined with univariate and multivariate logistical analyses. RESULTS: Use of provider-directed and self-directed CAM was stable over time (N=176). Self-directed CAM was more often used to influence the course of cancer than provider-directed CAM. Both were used to influence well-being. Openness to experience predicted use of provider-directed CAM, while clinical distress predicted use of self-directed CAM, after adjusting for other predictors. Perceived control did not predict CAM use. CONCLUSION: CAM use is stable over time. It is meaningful to distinguish provider-directed from self-directed CAM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers are advised to plan a 'CAM-talk' before adjuvant therapy, and discuss patients' expectations about influence of CAM on the course of cancer. Distressed patients most likely need information about self-directed CAM.
OBJECTIVE: Examine stability of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) of breast cancerpatients, reasons for CAM use, and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological predictors of CAM use. METHODS: CAM use was assessed after adjuvant therapy and six months later. Following the CAM Healthcare Model, CAM use was divided into use of provider-directed (guided) and self-directed (self-help) CAM. Stability and reasons for CAM use were examined with McNemar's tests and descriptive statistics. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between predictors and CAM use were examined with univariate and multivariate logistical analyses. RESULTS: Use of provider-directed and self-directed CAM was stable over time (N=176). Self-directed CAM was more often used to influence the course of cancer than provider-directed CAM. Both were used to influence well-being. Openness to experience predicted use of provider-directed CAM, while clinical distress predicted use of self-directed CAM, after adjusting for other predictors. Perceived control did not predict CAM use. CONCLUSION: CAM use is stable over time. It is meaningful to distinguish provider-directed from self-directed CAM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers are advised to plan a 'CAM-talk' before adjuvant therapy, and discuss patients' expectations about influence of CAM on the course of cancer. Distressed patients most likely need information about self-directed CAM.
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: Alissa R Link; Marilie D Gammon; Judith S Jacobson; Page Abrahamson; Patrick T Bradshaw; Mary Beth Terry; Susan Teitelbaum; Alfred Neugut; Heather Greenlee Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Ellen Jones; Lisa Nissen; Alexandra McCarthy; Kathryn Steadman; Carol Windsor Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Kirsti I Toivonen; Rie Tamagawa; Michael Speca; Joanne Stephen; Linda E Carlson Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Ellen Jones; Lisa Nissen; Alexandra McCarthy; Kathryn Steadman; Carol Windsor Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.279