Dercan Akpunar1, Hatice Bebis, Tulay Yavan. 1. Public Health Nursing Department, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Health Sciences Institution, Ankara, Turkey E-mail : dakpunar@gata.edu.tr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research carried out with gynecologic cancer patients using CAM was reviewed to provide a source for discussing which CAM method is used for which purpose, patients' perceptions on the effects/side effects occurred during/after using CAM and their sources of information regarding CAM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This literature review was carried out for the period between January 2000 and March 2015 using Scopus, Dynamed, Med-Line, Science Direct, Ulakbim, Research Starters, Ebscohost, Cinahl Complete, Academic Onefile, Directory of Open Access Journals, BMJ Online Journals (2007-2009), Ovid, Oxford Journal, Proquest Hospital Collection, Springer-Kluwer Link, Taylor and Francis, Up To Date, Web Of Science (Citation Index), Wiley Cochrane-Evidence Base, Wiley Online Library, and Pub-Med search databases with "complementary and alternative medicine, gynecologic cancer" as keywords. After searching through these results, a total of 12 full length papers in English were included. RESULTS: CAM use in gynecologic cancer patients was discussed in 8 studies and CAM use in breast and gynecologic cancer patients in 4. It was determined that the frequency of CAM use varies between 40.3% and 94.7%. As the CAM method, herbal medicines, vitamins/minerals were used most frequently in 8 of the studies. When the reasons why gynecologic cancer patients use CAM are examined, it is determined that they generally use to strengthen the immune system, reduce the side effects of cancer treatment and for physical and psychological relaxation. In this review, most of the gynecologic cancer patients perceived use of CAM as beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: In order that the patients obtain adequate reliable information about CAM and avoid practices which may harm the efficiency of medical treatment, it is recommended that "Healthcare Professionals" develop a common language.
PURPOSE: Research carried out with gynecologic cancerpatients using CAM was reviewed to provide a source for discussing which CAM method is used for which purpose, patients' perceptions on the effects/side effects occurred during/after using CAM and their sources of information regarding CAM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This literature review was carried out for the period between January 2000 and March 2015 using Scopus, Dynamed, Med-Line, Science Direct, Ulakbim, Research Starters, Ebscohost, Cinahl Complete, Academic Onefile, Directory of Open Access Journals, BMJ Online Journals (2007-2009), Ovid, Oxford Journal, Proquest Hospital Collection, Springer-Kluwer Link, Taylor and Francis, Up To Date, Web Of Science (Citation Index), Wiley Cochrane-Evidence Base, Wiley Online Library, and Pub-Med search databases with "complementary and alternative medicine, gynecologic cancer" as keywords. After searching through these results, a total of 12 full length papers in English were included. RESULTS:CAM use in gynecologic cancerpatients was discussed in 8 studies and CAM use in breast and gynecologic cancerpatients in 4. It was determined that the frequency of CAM use varies between 40.3% and 94.7%. As the CAM method, herbal medicines, vitamins/minerals were used most frequently in 8 of the studies. When the reasons why gynecologic cancerpatients use CAM are examined, it is determined that they generally use to strengthen the immune system, reduce the side effects of cancer treatment and for physical and psychological relaxation. In this review, most of the gynecologic cancerpatients perceived use of CAM as beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: In order that the patients obtain adequate reliable information about CAM and avoid practices which may harm the efficiency of medical treatment, it is recommended that "Healthcare Professionals" develop a common language.
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: Kirsti I Toivonen; Rie Tamagawa; Michael Speca; Joanne Stephen; Linda E Carlson Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 3.279