Darren Hunter1, Christopher Marinakis2, Ruth Salisbury3, Alison Cray3, Richard Oates2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Bendigo, VIC, Australia. darren.hunter@petermac.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Bendigo, VIC, Australia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Box Hill, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly used with radiotherapy treatment for cancer. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of concurrent CAM, positive/negative outcomes and any variation of use across regional and metropolitan demographics. METHODS: An ethics-approved survey was provided to radiotherapy outpatients in regional and metropolitan Victoria, Australia. The survey enquired about demographical details, CAM uptake, perceived benefits/effects, source of CAM information and disclosure of use. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five patients were recruited across both sites. Patients reporting concurrent CAM use were 45 % (regional site, April-August 2012) and 47 % (metropolitan site, January-May 2013). More patients at the regional centre reported living away from home during treatment (35 vs 8 %) though this did not impact upon CAM uptake. For both sites, 60 % of CAM users felt they had been provided with sufficient CAM information with family/friends the most common source. The highest reported rationale for CAM use was the patient's choice (61 and 52 %). Only 19 % of patients at either site claimed the recommendation of a doctor was the reason for CAM use. 'Improving immune system' was the most common expectation of CAM at both sites (39 and 50 %). More than half of CAM users felt that it was effective (51 and 54 %). CONCLUSIONS: CAM use across regional and metropolitan Australia is equivalent, constitutes a substantial proportion of radiotherapy outpatients and is largely considered effective by CAM users. Healthcare professionals need to improve knowledge, communication, reporting and awareness of concurrent CAM in radiotherapy practice.
PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly used with radiotherapy treatment for cancer. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of concurrent CAM, positive/negative outcomes and any variation of use across regional and metropolitan demographics. METHODS: An ethics-approved survey was provided to radiotherapy outpatients in regional and metropolitan Victoria, Australia. The survey enquired about demographical details, CAM uptake, perceived benefits/effects, source of CAM information and disclosure of use. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five patients were recruited across both sites. Patients reporting concurrent CAM use were 45 % (regional site, April-August 2012) and 47 % (metropolitan site, January-May 2013). More patients at the regional centre reported living away from home during treatment (35 vs 8 %) though this did not impact upon CAM uptake. For both sites, 60 % of CAM users felt they had been provided with sufficient CAM information with family/friends the most common source. The highest reported rationale for CAM use was the patient's choice (61 and 52 %). Only 19 % of patients at either site claimed the recommendation of a doctor was the reason for CAM use. 'Improving immune system' was the most common expectation of CAM at both sites (39 and 50 %). More than half of CAM users felt that it was effective (51 and 54 %). CONCLUSIONS: CAM use across regional and metropolitan Australia is equivalent, constitutes a substantial proportion of radiotherapy outpatients and is largely considered effective by CAM users. Healthcare professionals need to improve knowledge, communication, reporting and awareness of concurrent CAM in radiotherapy practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative medicine; Australia; Complementary therapies; Radiation oncology; Radiotherapy
Authors: Meena S Moran; Shuangge Ma; Reshma Jagsi; Tzu-I Jonathan Yang; Susan A Higgins; Joanne B Weidhaas; Lynn D Wilson; Shane Lloyd; Richard Peschel; Bryant Gaudreau; Sara Rockwell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Pihlak; R Liivand; O Trelin; H Neissar; I Peterson; S Kivistik; K Lilo; J Jaal Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Karen M Mustian; Joseph A Roscoe; Oxana G Palesh; Lisa K Sprod; Charles E Heckler; Luke J Peppone; Kenneth Y Usuki; Marilyn N Ling; Ralph A Brasacchio; Gary R Morrow Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Jin Ge; Jessica Fishman; Neha Vapiwala; Susan Q Li; Krupali Desai; Sharon X Xie; Jun J Mao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
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