G Ciarlo1, E Ahmadi2, S Welter2, J Hübner2. 1. Medizinische Klinik II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. Electronic address: Gianluca.Ciarlo@kgu.de. 2. Medizinische Klinik II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The interest in CAM among cancer patients is constantly growing and about 50% already used CAM alongside cancer therapy. Little is known on the factors influencing patients' choice of type of CAM used. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of two validated instruments (the ASKU (Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskala), the PAM 13-D (Patient Activation Measure) and the structured AKKOM questionnaire on CAM usage was distributed at a German university hospital. RESULTS: 639 patients (male 32.9%, female 63.2%; gynecological cancer 41%, gastrointestinal 19.2%, urogenital 15.6%) took part. 60% had used CAM in the last 3 months (biological 73%, holistic 63%, mind-body-methods 62%). Participants up to 30 years preferred biologically (p = 0.001), while women with gynecological cancer favored holistic based methods (p < 0.0001). There was no association between patients' beliefs on cancer causes and the chosen CAM method. CONCLUSION: Improving knowledge in patients on cancer etiology and treatments could facilitate the understanding of additional complementary treatments.
INTRODUCTION: The interest in CAM among cancerpatients is constantly growing and about 50% already used CAM alongside cancer therapy. Little is known on the factors influencing patients' choice of type of CAM used. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of two validated instruments (the ASKU (Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskala), the PAM 13-D (Patient Activation Measure) and the structured AKKOM questionnaire on CAM usage was distributed at a German university hospital. RESULTS: 639 patients (male 32.9%, female 63.2%; gynecological cancer 41%, gastrointestinal 19.2%, urogenital 15.6%) took part. 60% had used CAM in the last 3 months (biological 73%, holistic 63%, mind-body-methods 62%). Participants up to 30 years preferred biologically (p = 0.001), while women with gynecological cancer favored holistic based methods (p < 0.0001). There was no association between patients' beliefs on cancer causes and the chosen CAM method. CONCLUSION: Improving knowledge in patients on cancer etiology and treatments could facilitate the understanding of additional complementary treatments.