Surveys of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Part II. Use of Alternative and Complementary Cancer Therapies

Sparber, Andrew; Wootton, Jacqueline C.

doi:10.1089/107555301300328179

Cited by 72 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous reviews of the wider literature on CAM use across multiple cancer diagnoses have also found considerable variation across studies. 17,18 The variation in prevalence rates may be a consequence of the varied definitions of CAM use utilised in the original studies. For example, in our primary studies the reported time period over which CAM use is assessed ranged from 'current' CAM use (presumably more akin to incidence than prevalence) through CAM use since diagnosis (a varied time for different participants)/over the past 4 weeks-12 months, to any CAM use ever.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous reviews on the subject need up-dating and do not provide detailed information focused on CAM use in prostate cancer. [16][17][18] Currently, this makes it difficult to have confidence in assertions about the prevalence of CAM use in prostate cancer. Furthermore, a comprehensive up-to-date review would provide useful information for oncologists that could aide their communication with patients about CAM, inform the research community as to gaps and inconsistencies in this literature and possibly identify new research areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of prevalence studies

Bishop

Rea

Lewith

et al. 2010

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Men with prostate cancer are reported as commonly using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) but surveys have not recently been subjected to a rigorous systematic review incorporating quality assessment. Six electronic databases were searched using pre-defined terms. Detailed information was extracted systematically from each relevant article. Study reporting quality was assessed using a quality assessment tool, which demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability and produces a percentage score. In all, 42 studies are reviewed. All were published in English between 1999 and 2009; 60% were conducted in the United States. The reporting quality was mixed (median score ¼ 66%, range 23-94%). Significant heterogeneity precluded formal meta-analysis. In all, 39 studies covering 11 736 men reported overall prevalence of CAM use; this ranged from 8 to 90% (median ¼ 30%). In all, 10 studies reported prevalence of CAM use specifically for cancer care; this ranged from 8 to 50% (median ¼ 30%). Some evidence suggested CAM use is more common in men with higher education/incomes and more severe disease. The prevalence of CAM use among men with prostate cancer varies greatly across studies. Future studies should use standardised and validated data collection techniques to reduce bias and enhance comparability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of prevalence studies

Bishop

Rea

Lewith

et al. 2010

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although complementary therapies are commonly used by people with cancer [7][8][9], randomized controlled trials of specific therapies in this population rarely demonstrate any benefit in terms of quality of life. Our experience of working in cancer support services leads us to suggest that this is because, for this population especially, the benefits of specific therapies are intertwined with the benefits of the therapeutic relationship and other contextual factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individualised and complex experiences of integrative cancer support care: combining qualitative and quantitative data

Seers

Gale

Paterson

et al. 2009

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe widespread use of complementary therapies alongside biomedical treatment by people with cancer is not supported by evidence from clinical trials. We aimed to use combined qualitative and quantitative data to describe and measure individualized experiences and outcomes. Methods In three integrative Cancer Support Centres (two breast cancer only) in the UK, consecutive patients completed the individualised outcome questionnaire Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) before and after treatment. MYCaW collects quantitative data (7-point scales) and written qualitative data and the qualitative data were analysed using published categories. Results 782 participants, 92% female, mean age 51yrs, nominated a wide range of concerns. Psychological and emotional concerns predominated. At follow-up, the mean change (improvement) in scores (n=588) were: concern 1, 2.06 (95% CI 1.92-2.20); concern 2, 1.74 (95% CI 1.60-1.90); and wellbeing, 0.64 (95% CI 0.52-0.75. The most common responses to 'what has been the most important aspect for you?' were 'receiving complementary therapies on an individual or group basis' (26.2%); 'support and understanding received from therapists' (17.1%) and 'time spent with other patients at the centres' (16.1%). Positive (61.5%) and negative (38.5%) descriptions of 'other things affecting your health' correlated with larger and smaller improvement in concerns and wellbeing respectively Conclusions In a multi-centre evaluation the MYCaW questionnaire provides rich data about patient experience, changes over time and perceptions of what was important to each individual with cancer within that experience. It is unlikely that meaningful evaluations of this complex intervention could be carried out by quantitative methods alone.

show abstract

“…Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is being increasingly used in Western countries, mainly in a complementary and supportive role after a cancer diagnosis [4,7,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: a method for use in cancer support care

Polley

Seers²,

Cooke³

et al. 2007

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goals of work:MYCaW questionnaires from people at these cancer support centres was carried out. The "concerns", "other things going on in their life" and "important aspects of centre" were thematically categorised, externally validated by a focus group and the inter-rater reliability calculated. Main results: Clinical information from a cancer patient's perspective was collected that is not measured on standard quality of life questionnaires; furthermore some themes acknowledge the multifaceted aspects of CAM provision, rather than information only relating to the therapeutic intervention. Categories for qualitative MYCaW analysis have been established providing a tool for future research and/or service delivery improvement within cancer support centres such as these. Conclusions: The established themes provide a framework to aid analysis of qualitative aspects of complementary therapy care for people with cancer, improving our understanding of how the patient's cancer experience can be aided by complementary therapies in specialized cancer centres.

show abstract

Surveys of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Part II. Use of Alternative and Complementary Cancer Therapies

Cited by 72 publications

References 17 publications

Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of prevalence studies

Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of prevalence studies

Individualised and complex experiences of integrative cancer support care: combining qualitative and quantitative data

How to summarise and report written qualitative data from patients: a method for use in cancer support care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About