Aimee Sullivan1, Peter Gilbar2, Colin Curtain3. 1. Toowoomba Hospital, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia aimee.sullivan1@gmail.com. 2. Toowoomba Hospital, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia Department of Medicine (Rural Clinical School), The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. 3. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Numerous studies have demonstrated the high prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in metropolitan cancer cohorts but few have been conducted in regional and remote populations. This study aimed to investigate the trends and regional variations in CAM use by cancer patients at a regional cancer care center in Toowoomba, South East Queensland, Australia. METHODS: All English-speaking adult cancer patients attending the regional cancer care center were invited to participate. Eligible patients were provided a self-administered questionnaire that was developed based on published surveys. Ethics approval was obtained. RESULTS: Overall 142 patients completed the questionnaire and 68% were currently or had previously used at least one form of CAM. CAM users and nonusers did not differ significantly by region, age, gender, time since diagnosis, income, town size, treatment intent, or metastases. CAM users were more likely to have a higher level of education. Concurrent CAM use with conventional treatment was reported by approximately half of respondents. The most common reason for CAM use was "to improve general physical well-being." The most common sources of CAM information were family (31%) and friends (29%). Disclosure of CAM use to either the general practitioner or specialist was reported by 46% and 33% of patients, respectively. The most common reason for nondisclosure was "doctor never asked." CONCLUSION: This study supports previous research that CAM use is as common in regional and remote areas as metropolitan areas. Nondisclosure of CAM use to health professionals was common. Future research needs to focus on strategies to improve communication between patients and health professionals about the use of CAM.
AIM: Numerous studies have demonstrated the high prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in metropolitan cancer cohorts but few have been conducted in regional and remote populations. This study aimed to investigate the trends and regional variations in CAM use by cancerpatients at a regional cancer care center in Toowoomba, South East Queensland, Australia. METHODS: All English-speaking adult cancerpatients attending the regional cancer care center were invited to participate. Eligible patients were provided a self-administered questionnaire that was developed based on published surveys. Ethics approval was obtained. RESULTS: Overall 142 patients completed the questionnaire and 68% were currently or had previously used at least one form of CAM. CAM users and nonusers did not differ significantly by region, age, gender, time since diagnosis, income, town size, treatment intent, or metastases. CAM users were more likely to have a higher level of education. Concurrent CAM use with conventional treatment was reported by approximately half of respondents. The most common reason for CAM use was "to improve general physical well-being." The most common sources of CAM information were family (31%) and friends (29%). Disclosure of CAM use to either the general practitioner or specialist was reported by 46% and 33% of patients, respectively. The most common reason for nondisclosure was "doctor never asked." CONCLUSION: This study supports previous research that CAM use is as common in regional and remote areas as metropolitan areas. Nondisclosure of CAM use to health professionals was common. Future research needs to focus on strategies to improve communication between patients and health professionals about the use of CAM.
Authors: Kerstin A Kessel; Sabrina Lettner; Carmen Kessel; Henning Bier; Tilo Biedermann; Helmut Friess; Peter Herrschbach; Jürgen E Gschwend; Bernhard Meyer; Christian Peschel; Roland Schmid; Markus Schwaiger; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Stephanie E Combs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Ellen Jones; Lisa Nissen; Alexandra McCarthy; Kathryn Steadman; Carol Windsor Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec 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
Authors: Caroline A Smith; Jennifer Hunter; Geoff P Delaney; Jane M Ussher; Kate Templeman; Suzanne Grant; Eleanor Oyston Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 3.659