Joshua M Bauml1,2,3, Sagar Chokshi4, Marilyn M Schapira1,3,5,6, Eun-Ok Im7, Susan Q Li6,8, Corey J Langer1,2, Said A Ibrahim3,5,6, Jun J Mao1,6,8. 1. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion (CHERP), Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) incorporates treatments used by cancer survivors in an attempt to improve their quality of life. Although population studies have identified factors associated with its use, to the best of the authors knowledge, assessment of why patients use CAM or the barriers against its use have not been examined to date. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey study in the thoracic, breast, and gastrointestinal medical oncology clinics at an academic cancer center. Clinical and demographic variables were collected by self-report and chart abstraction. Attitudes and beliefs were measured using the validated Attitudes and Beliefs about CAM (ABCAM) instrument. This instrument divides attitudes and beliefs into 3 domains: expected benefits, perceived barriers, and subjective norms. RESULTS: Among 969 participants (response rate, 82.7%) surveyed between June 2010 and September 2011, patient age ≤65 years, female sex, and college education were associated with a significantly greater expected benefit from CAM (P<.0001 for all). Nonwhite patients reported more perceived barriers to CAM use compared with white patients (P<.0001), but had a similar degree of expected benefit (P = .76). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, all domains of the ABCAM instrument were found to be significantly associated with CAM use (P<.01 for all) among patients with cancer. Attitudes and beliefs regarding CAM explained much more variance in CAM use than clinical and demographic variables alone. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and beliefs varied by key clinical and demographic characteristics, and predicted CAM use. By developing CAM programs based upon attitudes and beliefs, barriers among underserved patient populations may be removed and more patient centered care may be provided.
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) incorporates treatments used by cancer survivors in an attempt to improve their quality of life. Although population studies have identified factors associated with its use, to the best of the authors knowledge, assessment of why patients use CAM or the barriers against its use have not been examined to date. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey study in the thoracic, breast, and gastrointestinal medical oncology clinics at an academic cancer center. Clinical and demographic variables were collected by self-report and chart abstraction. Attitudes and beliefs were measured using the validated Attitudes and Beliefs about CAM (ABCAM) instrument. This instrument divides attitudes and beliefs into 3 domains: expected benefits, perceived barriers, and subjective norms. RESULTS: Among 969 participants (response rate, 82.7%) surveyed between June 2010 and September 2011, patient age ≤65 years, female sex, and college education were associated with a significantly greater expected benefit from CAM (P<.0001 for all). Nonwhite patients reported more perceived barriers to CAM use compared with white patients (P<.0001), but had a similar degree of expected benefit (P = .76). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, all domains of the ABCAM instrument were found to be significantly associated with CAM use (P<.01 for all) among patients with cancer. Attitudes and beliefs regarding CAM explained much more variance in CAM use than clinical and demographic variables alone. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and beliefs varied by key clinical and demographic characteristics, and predicted CAM use. By developing CAM programs based upon attitudes and beliefs, barriers among underserved patient populations may be removed and more patient centered care may be provided.
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: Sheila N Garland; Linda E Carlson; Alisa J Stephens; Michael C Antle; Charles Samuels; Tavis S Campbell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V Morrison; B J Henderson; F Zinovieff; G Davies; R Cartmell; A Hall; S Gollins Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2011-05-08 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Jun J Mao; Sharon X Xie; John T Farrar; Carrie T Stricker; Marjorie A Bowman; Deborah Bruner; Angela DeMichele Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jun J Mao; Karen E Wagner; Christina M Seluzicki; Audra Hugo; Laura K Galindez; Heather Sheaffer; Kevin R Fox Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Kathleen A Lynch; Nicholas Emard; Kevin T Liou; Karen Popkin; Michael Borten; Ogechi Nwodim; Thomas M Atkinson; Jun J Mao Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kevin T Liou; Tony K W Hung; Salimah H Meghani; Andrew S Epstein; Q Susan Li; Sally A D Romero; Roger B Cohen; Jun J Mao Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Brittany M Bernardo; Joanne W Elena; Paige A Green; Elise Hoover; Juan Peng; Garnet L Anderson; Bette Caan; Lisa G Johnson; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 4.254