PURPOSE: Information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in Australian radiotherapy patients is sparse. This study investigated the type and prevalence of CAM amongst an Australian regional radiotherapy patient cohort and the disclosure of information to the consultant radiation oncologist. METHODS: A single hardcopy questionnaire survey was provided to patients regarding the use of CAM and discussion with the treating medical practitioner. The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) classification was used to group responses. The study was open for a period of 4 months, and all patients on treatment during this period were approached. RESULTS: A total of 170 questionnaires were distributed to eligible patients, and 152 patients returned a completed questionnaire (89.4 % response rate). Sixty-nine of the 152 patients (45.4 %) reported active CAM use. Of the 69 patients who used CAM, mind-body medicine (n = 54, 78.3 %) and biological-based therapies (n = 54, 78.3 %) were the commonest NCCAM group, whilst manipulative/body-based therapies (n = 44, 63.8 %), whole medical systems (n = 7, 10.1 %) and energy therapies (n = 5, 7.2 %) were the least common. The most common therapies were vitamins and mineral supplementation (n = 33, 47.8 %) and massage therapy (n = 18, 26.1 %). Of note, only 29 participants stated that they had discussed CAM therapies with their radiation oncologist. CONCLUSIONS: CAM use was prevalent amongst cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, but frequently not discussed with the treating radiation oncologist. Considering the high prevalence of CAM, further resources could be justifiably directed at providing this service for cancer patients to foster a more holistic approach to their care.
PURPOSE: Information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in Australian radiotherapy patients is sparse. This study investigated the type and prevalence of CAM amongst an Australian regional radiotherapy patient cohort and the disclosure of information to the consultant radiation oncologist. METHODS: A single hardcopy questionnaire survey was provided to patients regarding the use of CAM and discussion with the treating medical practitioner. The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) classification was used to group responses. The study was open for a period of 4 months, and all patients on treatment during this period were approached. RESULTS: A total of 170 questionnaires were distributed to eligible patients, and 152 patients returned a completed questionnaire (89.4 % response rate). Sixty-nine of the 152 patients (45.4 %) reported active CAM use. Of the 69 patients who used CAM, mind-body medicine (n = 54, 78.3 %) and biological-based therapies (n = 54, 78.3 %) were the commonest NCCAM group, whilst manipulative/body-based therapies (n = 44, 63.8 %), whole medical systems (n = 7, 10.1 %) and energy therapies (n = 5, 7.2 %) were the least common. The most common therapies were vitamins and mineral supplementation (n = 33, 47.8 %) and massage therapy (n = 18, 26.1 %). Of note, only 29 participants stated that they had discussed CAM therapies with their radiation oncologist. CONCLUSIONS: CAM use was prevalent amongst cancerpatients undergoing radiotherapy, but frequently not discussed with the treating radiation oncologist. Considering the high prevalence of CAM, further resources could be justifiably directed at providing this service for cancerpatients to foster a more holistic approach to their care.
Authors: Christina Gundgaard Pedersen; Søren Christensen; Anders Bonde Jensen; Robert Zachariae Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Sunghae Uhm; Eric K Oermann; Andrew W Ju; Viola Chen; Heather N Hanscom; Sarah Laing; Joy S Kim; Siyuan Lei; Gerald P Batipps; Keith Kowalczyk; Gaurav Bandi; John Pahira; Kevin G McGeagh; Brian T Collins; Pranay Krishnan; Nancy A Dawson; Kathryn L Taylor; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Darren Hunter; Christopher Marinakis; Ruth Salisbury; Alison Cray; Richard Oates Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Peter J H Beliveau; Jessica J Wong; Deborah A Sutton; Nir Ben Simon; André E Bussières; Silvano A Mior; Simon D French Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2017-11-22