Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives

Data relating to the use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients have been published for a number of European countries. No recent data are available for Austria. To ascertain the extent of CAM use by cancer patients, what patients' motives are, what methods are used and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2003-10, Vol.115 (19-20), p.705-709
Main Authors: Spiegel, Wolfgang, Zidek, Thomas, Vutuc, Christian, Maier, Manfred, Isak, Karin, Micksche, Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Austria
Chi-Square Distribution
Complementary Therapies
Counseling
Cross-Sectional Studies
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Family Practice
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Oncology
Middle Aged
Motivation
Neoplasms - therapy
Prevalence
Sex Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Data relating to the use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients have been published for a number of European countries. No recent data are available for Austria. To ascertain the extent of CAM use by cancer patients, what patients' motives are, what methods are used and who the CAM providers are. Self-administered questionnaire; cross-sectional study. A sample of 231 cancer patients who had consulted the Viennese Cancer League. Chi-square and Mantel-Haenszel tests were used for the statistical evaluation. 27.3% of the cancer patients had received CAM therapy: 33.1% of the female and 20.5% of the male participants (p = 0.045). Those who were below the median of the age categories (53.8 years) had used CAM to a statistically higher degree (35.5% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.023). The most important motives were the enhancement of "nature" and the GPs' recommendation. CAM was administered in 44.4% of cases by the family doctor, in 39.7% by patients themselves, in 6.3% by a hospital doctor, in 6.3% by a lay-practitioner or "non-medical practitioner against payment" and in 4.8% of cases by a practising oncologist. From the high percentage of patients who use CAM without consulting a physician or who follow the advice of others, it would seem highly probable that conventional and complementary methods are rarely effectively coordinated. To rectify this we conclude that oncologists and GPs should have a basic knowledge of CAM and address the issue when counselling their cancer patients.
ISSN:0043-5325
1613-7671
DOI:10.1007/BF03040886