Sang Hyuck Kim1, Dong Wook Shin2, You-Seon Nam3, So Young Kim4, Hyung-Kook Yang5, Be Long Cho6, Keeho Park7, Heui-Sug Jo8, Chang-Yeol Yim9, Sin Kam10, Jong-Hyock Park11. 1. Department of Family Medicine & Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Family Medicine & Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Health Promotion and Health Behavior, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: dwshin.snuh@gmail.com. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Republic of Korea. 5. National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Family Medicine & Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Health Promotion and Health Behavior, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea; Institute on Aging, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Seoul National University, Suwon, Republic of Korea. 7. Cancer Policy Branch, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 8. Department of Health Management and Policy, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea. 10. Department of Preventative Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 11. National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Department of Health Informatics and Management, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea; Graduate School of Health Science Business Convergence, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jonghyock@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study sought to identify discrepancies between the expectations of patients with cancer and oncologists regarding the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), and to determine how patients evaluate CAM efficacy after its use. METHODS: Data from the Cancer Patient Experience Study, a nationwide survey, were used. Seven subdivided efficacy domains were included in the survey. An oncologist-patient matching analysis was done to assess the concordance of CAM efficacies between oncologists and patients with cancer. In addition, the patients' expectations of CAM efficacies were compared before and after use. RESULTS: Out of 719 participants, 201 patients with cancer (28.0%) reported using CAMs. The patients with cancer generally tended to be more positive about CAM efficacies than the oncologists. The largest discrepancy in efficacy perception was found in the efficacy domain of survival benefit, which included complete disease remission and prolonged survival. Many patients reported that they did not experience the positive efficacy they had anticipated before use. However, a substantial proportion of patients indicated that CAMs were as effective as they had expected, even though there is little evidence supporting the CAM efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: There was a marked discrepancy and a lack of concordance in expectations of CAM efficacy between patients with cancer and oncologists. Better communication between the patients and oncologists regarding CAM efficacy would be needed to make the patients to have shared expectations, and to reduce unnecessary CAM use.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study sought to identify discrepancies between the expectations of patients with cancer and oncologists regarding the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), and to determine how patients evaluate CAM efficacy after its use. METHODS: Data from the CancerPatient Experience Study, a nationwide survey, were used. Seven subdivided efficacy domains were included in the survey. An oncologist-patient matching analysis was done to assess the concordance of CAM efficacies between oncologists and patients with cancer. In addition, the patients' expectations of CAM efficacies were compared before and after use. RESULTS: Out of 719 participants, 201 patients with cancer (28.0%) reported using CAMs. The patients with cancer generally tended to be more positive about CAM efficacies than the oncologists. The largest discrepancy in efficacy perception was found in the efficacy domain of survival benefit, which included complete disease remission and prolonged survival. Many patients reported that they did not experience the positive efficacy they had anticipated before use. However, a substantial proportion of patients indicated that CAMs were as effective as they had expected, even though there is little evidence supporting the CAM efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: There was a marked discrepancy and a lack of concordance in expectations of CAM efficacy between patients with cancer and oncologists. Better communication between the patients and oncologists regarding CAM efficacy would be needed to make the patients to have shared expectations, and to reduce unnecessary CAM use.
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Ilana Moffet; Sydney Shade; Ashkan Emadi; Cheryl Knott; Emily F Gorman; Christopher D'Adamo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.692