Claudia Bozza1,2, Lorenzo Gerratana3,4, Debora Basile3,4, Maria Grazia Vitale3,4, Michele Bartoletti3,4, Elisa Agostinetto4, Stefania Russo3, Alessandro Follador3, Elisa De Carlo5, Nicoletta Pella3, Roberta Sottile3, Gianpiero Fasola3, Fabio Puglisi4,5. 1. Department of Oncology, ASUIUD, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, UD, Italy. bozza.claudia@gmail.com. 2. Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, UD, Italy. bozza.claudia@gmail.com. 3. Department of Oncology, ASUIUD, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, UD, Italy. 4. Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, UD, Italy. 5. Unit of Medical Oncology and Cancer Prevention, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano-National Cancer Institute, Aviano, PN, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that about half of cancer patients use at least one form of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in their life but there is a strong reticence of patients in talking about CAM with their oncologist. Primary aim of this study was to inform patients about CAM, focusing on their supposed benefits, toxicities and interactions with conventional therapeutic agents. The study also explored patients' perception about CAM and ascertained the level of CAM use among cancer patients of an Italian academic hospital. METHODS: From April 2016 to April 2017, the observational pilot trial "CAMEO-PRO" prospectively enrolled 239 cancer patients that were invited to attend a tutorial about CAM at the Department of oncology, University Hospital of Udine, Italy. Before and after the informative session, patients were asked to fill a questionnaire reporting their knowledge and opinion about CAM. RESULTS: Overall, 163 (70%) women and 70 (30%) men were enrolled. Median age was 61 years. At study entry, 168 (72%) patients declared they had never been interested in this topic previously; 24 patients (11%) revealed the use of a type of alternative therapy and 58 (28%) revealed the use of complementary therapy. In total, 139 (55.2%) patients attended the informative session. Bowker's test of symmetry demonstrated statistically significant opinion's change after the session on 9 out of 14 explored items. CONCLUSIONS: Informative sessions seem to have a relevant impact on patients' perceptions and opinions about CAM.
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that about half of cancerpatients use at least one form of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in their life but there is a strong reticence of patients in talking about CAM with their oncologist. Primary aim of this study was to inform patients about CAM, focusing on their supposed benefits, toxicities and interactions with conventional therapeutic agents. The study also explored patients' perception about CAM and ascertained the level of CAM use among cancerpatients of an Italian academic hospital. METHODS: From April 2016 to April 2017, the observational pilot trial "CAMEO-PRO" prospectively enrolled 239 cancerpatients that were invited to attend a tutorial about CAM at the Department of oncology, University Hospital of Udine, Italy. Before and after the informative session, patients were asked to fill a questionnaire reporting their knowledge and opinion about CAM. RESULTS: Overall, 163 (70%) women and 70 (30%) men were enrolled. Median age was 61 years. At study entry, 168 (72%) patients declared they had never been interested in this topic previously; 24 patients (11%) revealed the use of a type of alternative therapy and 58 (28%) revealed the use of complementary therapy. In total, 139 (55.2%) patients attended the informative session. Bowker's test of symmetry demonstrated statistically significant opinion's change after the session on 9 out of 14 explored items. CONCLUSIONS: Informative sessions seem to have a relevant impact on patients' perceptions and opinions about CAM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative medicine; Communication in oncology; Complementary and alternative medicine; Quackery; Supportive care
Authors: Aminah Jatoi; Neil Ellison; Patrick A Burch; Jeff A Sloan; Shaker R Dakhil; Paul Novotny; Winston Tan; Tom R Fitch; Kendrith M Rowland; Charles Y F Young; Patrick J Flynn Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R C Kessler; R B Davis; D F Foster; M I Van Rompay; E E Walters; S A Wilkey; T J Kaptchuk; D M Eisenberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-08-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A Molassiotis; P Fernández-Ortega; D Pud; G Ozden; J A Scott; V Panteli; A Margulies; M Browall; M Magri; S Selvekerova; E Madsen; L Milovics; I Bruyns; G Gudmundsdottir; S Hummerston; A M-A Ahmad; N Platin; N Kearney; E Patiraki Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J Rubin; L K Kvols; G Sarna; R Koch; V E Currie; C W Young; S E Jones; J P Davignon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1982-01-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Encouse B Golden; Philip Y Lam; Adel Kardosh; Kevin J Gaffney; Enrique Cadenas; Stan G Louie; Nicos A Petasis; Thomas C Chen; Axel H Schönthal Journal: Blood Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Aslam Khan; Mohamed Eldigre Ahmed; Ahmed Aldarmahi; Syed Faisal Zaidi; Ahmad M Subahi; Adnan Al Shaikh; Zackary Alghamdy; Lujain Ali Alhakami Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 2.629