Loading…
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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 2003-10, Vol.115 (19-20), p.705-709 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
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!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03 |
container_end_page | 709 |
container_issue | 19-20 |
container_start_page | 705 |
container_title | Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift |
container_volume | 115 |
creator | Spiegel, Wolfgang Zidek, Thomas Vutuc, Christian Maier, Manfred Isak, Karin Micksche, Michael |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF03040886 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71416804</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71416804</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEtLA0EQhAdRTIxe_AEyJwVhtSfz2vGmwagQ8KLnpTPbgyv7cmYT8N-7kqB9Kej6KKhi7FzAjQCwtw9LkKAgz80BmwojZGaNFYdsCqBkpuVcT9hJSp8AUisrjtlEKKPBKT1lq0XX9DU11A4Yv_nwQRH7ihKvWu6x9RR5j0M12umO95G2WNP45diWf8YVb7qh2lI6ZUcB60Rne52x9-Xj2-I5W70-vSzuV5mf53LItEYdtLEObRBO0toZQxh8adV6PGt0LsmWXgX0zhoMpEnOlTVA2jkPcsYud7l97L42lIaiqZKnusaWuk0qrFDC5GP5GbvegT52KUUKRR-rZixaCCh-tyv-txvhi33qZt1Q-Y_ux5I_McBp6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71416804</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Spiegel, Wolfgang ; Zidek, Thomas ; Vutuc, Christian ; Maier, Manfred ; Isak, Karin ; Micksche, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Spiegel, Wolfgang ; Zidek, Thomas ; Vutuc, Christian ; Maier, Manfred ; Isak, Karin ; Micksche, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-5325</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1613-7671</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF03040886</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14650945</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Austria</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 2003-10, Vol.115 (19-20), p.705-709</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650945$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Spiegel, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zidek, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vutuc, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maier, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isak, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Micksche, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives</title><title>Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift</title><addtitle>Wien Klin Wochenschr</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Austria</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Complementary Therapies</subject><subject>Counseling</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Oncology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0043-5325</issn><issn>1613-7671</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkEtLA0EQhAdRTIxe_AEyJwVhtSfz2vGmwagQ8KLnpTPbgyv7cmYT8N-7kqB9Kej6KKhi7FzAjQCwtw9LkKAgz80BmwojZGaNFYdsCqBkpuVcT9hJSp8AUisrjtlEKKPBKT1lq0XX9DU11A4Yv_nwQRH7ihKvWu6x9RR5j0M12umO95G2WNP45diWf8YVb7qh2lI6ZUcB60Rne52x9-Xj2-I5W70-vSzuV5mf53LItEYdtLEObRBO0toZQxh8adV6PGt0LsmWXgX0zhoMpEnOlTVA2jkPcsYud7l97L42lIaiqZKnusaWuk0qrFDC5GP5GbvegT52KUUKRR-rZixaCCh-tyv-txvhi33qZt1Q-Y_ux5I_McBp6g</recordid><startdate>20031031</startdate><enddate>20031031</enddate><creator>Spiegel, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Zidek, Thomas</creator><creator>Vutuc, Christian</creator><creator>Maier, Manfred</creator><creator>Isak, Karin</creator><creator>Micksche, Michael</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031031</creationdate><title>Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives</title><author>Spiegel, Wolfgang ; Zidek, Thomas ; Vutuc, Christian ; Maier, Manfred ; Isak, Karin ; Micksche, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Austria</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Complementary Therapies</topic><topic>Counseling</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Oncology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spiegel, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zidek, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vutuc, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maier, Manfred</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isak, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Micksche, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Spiegel, Wolfgang</au><au>Zidek, Thomas</au><au>Vutuc, Christian</au><au>Maier, Manfred</au><au>Isak, Karin</au><au>Micksche, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives</atitle><jtitle>Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift</jtitle><addtitle>Wien Klin Wochenschr</addtitle><date>2003-10-31</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>19-20</issue><spage>705</spage><epage>709</epage><pages>705-709</pages><issn>0043-5325</issn><eissn>1613-7671</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Austria</cop><pmid>14650945</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF03040886</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-5325 |
ispartof | Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 2003-10, Vol.115 (19-20), p.705-709 |
issn | 0043-5325 1613-7671 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71416804 |
source | Springer Nature |
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 |
title | Complementary therapies in cancer patients: prevalence and patients' motives |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T23%3A10%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Complementary%20therapies%20in%20cancer%20patients:%20prevalence%20and%20patients'%20motives&rft.jtitle=Wiener%20Klinische%20Wochenschrift&rft.au=Spiegel,%20Wolfgang&rft.date=2003-10-31&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=19-20&rft.spage=705&rft.epage=709&rft.pages=705-709&rft.issn=0043-5325&rft.eissn=1613-7671&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF03040886&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71416804%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-55a5f5679a7f193eb966eafcd74bbbb76583e7dc4fac976afe5e324760e599c03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71416804&rft_id=info:pmid/14650945&rfr_iscdi=true |