PURPOSE: Despite the extensive use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients, patient-physician communication regarding CAM therapies remains limited. This study quantified the extent of patient-physician communication about CAM and identified factors associated with its discussion in radiation therapy (RT) settings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 305 RT patients at an urban academic cancer center. Patients with different cancer types were recruited in their last week of RT. Participants self-reported their demographic characteristics, health status, CAM use, patient-physician communication regarding CAM, and rationale for/against discussing CAM therapies with physicians. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify relationships between demographic/clinical variables and patients' discussion of CAM with radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Among the 305 participants, 133 (43.6%) reported using CAM, and only 37 (12.1%) reported discussing CAM therapies with their radiation oncologists. In multivariate analyses, female patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.98) and patients with full-time employment (AOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.81) were less likely to discuss CAM with their radiation oncologists. CAM users (AOR 4.28, 95% CI 1.93-9.53) were more likely to discuss CAM with their radiation oncologists than were non-CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the common use of CAM among oncology patients, discussions regarding these treatments occur rarely in the RT setting, particularly among female and full-time employed patients. Clinicians and patients should incorporate discussions of CAM to guide its appropriate use and to maximize possible benefit while minimizing potential harm.
PURPOSE: Despite the extensive use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancerpatients, patient-physician communication regarding CAM therapies remains limited. This study quantified the extent of patient-physician communication about CAM and identified factors associated with its discussion in radiation therapy (RT) settings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 305 RT patients at an urban academic cancer center. Patients with different cancer types were recruited in their last week of RT. Participants self-reported their demographic characteristics, health status, CAM use, patient-physician communication regarding CAM, and rationale for/against discussing CAM therapies with physicians. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify relationships between demographic/clinical variables and patients' discussion of CAM with radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Among the 305 participants, 133 (43.6%) reported using CAM, and only 37 (12.1%) reported discussing CAM therapies with their radiation oncologists. In multivariate analyses, female patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.98) and patients with full-time employment (AOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.81) were less likely to discuss CAM with their radiation oncologists. CAM users (AOR 4.28, 95% CI 1.93-9.53) were more likely to discuss CAM with their radiation oncologists than were non-CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the common use of CAM among oncology patients, discussions regarding these treatments occur rarely in the RT setting, particularly among female and full-time employed patients. Clinicians and patients should incorporate discussions of CAM to guide its appropriate use and to maximize possible benefit while minimizing potential harm.
Authors: Jun James Mao; Christina Shearer Palmer; Kaitlin Elizabeth Healy; Krupali Desai; Jay Amsterdam Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Wendy A Weiger; Michael Smith; Heather Boon; Mary Ann Richardson; Ted J Kaptchuk; David M Eisenberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-12-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Brian M Shelley; Andrew L Sussman; Robert L Williams; Alissa R Segal; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jun J Mao; Steve C Palmer; Joseph B Straton; Peter F Cronholm; Shimrit Keddem; Kathryn Knott; Marjorie A Bowman; Frances K Barg Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Richard T Lee; Andrea Barbo; Gabriel Lopez; Amal Melhem-Bertrandt; Heather Lin; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Farr A Curlin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie J Sohl; Laurel A Borowski; Erin E Kent; Ashley Wilder Smith; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Russell L Rothman; Neeraj K Arora Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joshua Bauml; Corey J Langer; Tracey Evans; Sheila N Garland; Krupali Desai; Jun J Mao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kaitlyn Lapen; Elaine Cha; Christina C Huang; David M Rosenberg; Michael K Rooney; Mark McArthur; Ritu Arya; Christina H Son; Anne R McCall; Daniel W Golden Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Darren Hunter; Christopher Marinakis; Ruth Salisbury; Alison Cray; Richard Oates Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kent C Nate; Kristen H Griffin; Jon B Christianson; Jeffery A Dusek Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.629