Anzeige
Erschienen in:
08.05.2019
Use of complementary/integrative methods: cancer survivors’ misconceptions about recurrence prevention
Erschienen in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Ausgabe 3/2019
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Purpose
Many cancer survivors use complementary and alternative health methods (CAM). Because we are unaware of high-level evidence supporting CAM for preventing cancer recurrence, we studied post-treatment survivors who use CAM to assess (1) the percentage who included preventing recurrence as a motive for using CAM, (2) characteristics of survivors who use CAM intended to prevent recurrence, and (3) CAM domains associated with use for recurrence prevention.
Methods
We studied participants in the American Cancer Society’s Study of Cancer Survivors-I (nationwide study of adult survivors) who used CAM (excluding osteopathy, yoga, tai chi, or qi gong users, as well as anyone whose only reported CAM was prayer/meditation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of independent variables with CAM use for recurrence prevention.
Results
Among 1220 survivors using CAM, 14.8% reported recurrence prevention as a reason for CAM use (although only 0.4% indicated this was their only reason). The following were independently associated with odds of CAM use to prevent recurrence: not being married/in a marriage-like relationship (OR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–2.23), using mind–body (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.08–2.51) or biologically based (OR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.96–8.59) CAM and clinically relevant fear of recurrence (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.38–2.78).
Conclusions
Approximately 1/7 of survivors who use CAM have unrealistic expectations about CAM reducing recurrence risk. This expectation is strongly associated with the use of biologically based CAM.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Patient education should support informed decisions and realistic expectations regarding any complementary/integrative or mainstream/conventional clinical intervention.