BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among cancer patients. Data indicated that CAM use correlates with younger age, higher education levels, higher income, and less physician consultations. However, non-CAM use and predictors for non-CAM use are less clear among breast and gynecological cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of non-CAM use and to investigate factors that might influence non-CAM use. METHODS: The survey was conducted in breast cancer patients from January to May 2013 and in gynecological cancer patients from January to May 2014 with 2 pseudoanonymous questionnaires: one for CAM users (109 questions) and one for non-CAM users (85 questions). The survey was conducted via a telephone interview with 333 patients. Eligible participants were women with breast cancer (n = 285) and gynecological cancer (n = 291) who had undergone surgery at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Technical University Munich, Germany, in the years 2012 (breast cancer) and 2011-2013 (gynecological cancer). Descriptive statistics were generated to determine patterns of non-CAM use. Univariable analysis was used to detect patient characteristics associated with noninterest in the different CAM therapies. RESULTS: A total of 333 of 576 patients participated in the survey (58%). Fifty-eight percent (n = 192/333) were diagnosed with breast cancer and 42% (n = 141/333) with gynecological cancer. The overall prevalence of non-CAM use was 42% (n = 139/333). Eighty-one percent (n = 112/139) of the non-CAM users stated to have received no recommendation for CAM use, although 53% (n = 73/139) would have liked to receive information from their physician. As reasons for the nonuse of CAM therapies, 76% (n = 106/139) nonusers declared that they did not believe CAM use was necessary since the conventional therapy was considered sufficient, 44% (n = 61/139) reported a lack of information, 31% (n = 43/139) a fear of fraud, and 22% (n = 31/139) a fear of interactions and side effects of CAM. Sixty-eight percent (n = 95/139) of the patients stated that they would resort to CAM if the disease progressed while only 27% (n = 37/139) would still not use any CAM with progression of disease. Five percent (7/139) did not give any information regarding possible future CAM use with disease progression. Seventy-three percent (n = 102/139) would both welcome more physicians with qualifications in complementary medicine and supported an integration of CAM into our health care system. Furthermore, statistically significant correlations between patients' sociodemographic characteristics and their nonuse of complementary therapies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a high overall interest in CAM even in non-CAM users. Health care professionals should be aware of this in order to be able to better address patients' needs. It is necessary to explore the use of CAM with cancer patients, educate them about potentially beneficial therapies even in the light of the limited available evidence, and work towards an integrated model of health care. Therefore, we implemented a counseling service as an outpatient program (ZIGG) for integrative medicine concepts and evidence-based complementary treatments to discuss integrative health approaches proactively with cancer patients in our cancer center in 2013.
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among cancer patients. Data indicated that CAM use correlates with younger age, higher education levels, higher income, and less physician consultations. However, non-CAM use and predictors for non-CAM use are less clear among breast and gynecological cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of non-CAM use and to investigate factors that might influence non-CAM use. METHODS: The survey was conducted in breast cancer patients from January to May 2013 and in gynecological cancer patients from January to May 2014 with 2 pseudoanonymous questionnaires: one for CAM users (109 questions) and one for non-CAM users (85 questions). The survey was conducted via a telephone interview with 333 patients. Eligible participants were women with breast cancer (n = 285) and gynecological cancer (n = 291) who had undergone surgery at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Technical University Munich, Germany, in the years 2012 (breast cancer) and 2011-2013 (gynecological cancer). Descriptive statistics were generated to determine patterns of non-CAM use. Univariable analysis was used to detect patient characteristics associated with noninterest in the different CAM therapies. RESULTS: A total of 333 of 576 patients participated in the survey (58%). Fifty-eight percent (n = 192/333) were diagnosed with breast cancer and 42% (n = 141/333) with gynecological cancer. The overall prevalence of non-CAM use was 42% (n = 139/333). Eighty-one percent (n = 112/139) of the non-CAM users stated to have received no recommendation for CAM use, although 53% (n = 73/139) would have liked to receive information from their physician. As reasons for the nonuse of CAM therapies, 76% (n = 106/139) nonusers declared that they did not believe CAM use was necessary since the conventional therapy was considered sufficient, 44% (n = 61/139) reported a lack of information, 31% (n = 43/139) a fear of fraud, and 22% (n = 31/139) a fear of interactions and side effects of CAM. Sixty-eight percent (n = 95/139) of the patients stated that they would resort to CAM if the disease progressed while only 27% (n = 37/139) would still not use any CAM with progression of disease. Five percent (7/139) did not give any information regarding possible future CAM use with disease progression. Seventy-three percent (n = 102/139) would both welcome more physicians with qualifications in complementary medicine and supported an integration of CAM into our health care system. Furthermore, statistically significant correlations between patients' sociodemographic characteristics and their nonuse of complementary therapies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a high overall interest in CAM even in non-CAM users. Health care professionals should be aware of this in order to be able to better address patients' needs. It is necessary to explore the use of CAM with cancer patients, educate them about potentially beneficial therapies even in the light of the limited available evidence, and work towards an integrated model of health care. Therefore, we implemented a counseling service as an outpatient program (ZIGG) for integrative medicine concepts and evidence-based complementary treatments to discuss integrative health approaches proactively with cancer patients in our cancer center in 2013.
Authors: Charlie C L Xue; Anthony L Zhang; Vivian Lin; Cliff Da Costa; David F Story Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Carlo Fremd; Carolin C Hack; Andreas Schneeweiss; Geraldine Rauch; Diethelm Wallwiener; Sara Yvonne Brucker; Florin-Andrei Taran; Andreas Hartkopf; Friedrich Overkamp; Hans Tesch; Tanja Fehm; Peyman Hadji; Wolfgang Janni; Diana Lüftner; Michael P Lux; Volkmar Müller; Johannes Ettl; Erik Belleville; Christof Sohn; Florian Schuetz; Matthias M Beckmann; Peter A Fasching; Markus Wallwiener Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 2.344
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: T Zeller; K Muenstedt; C Stoll; J Schweder; B Senf; E Ruckhaeberle; S Becker; H Serve; J Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Cecile A Lengacher; Mary P Bennett; Kevin E Kip; Lois Gonzalez; Paul Jacobsen; Charles E Cox Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172