4.4 Article

Traditional Chinese medicine in cancer care: perspectives and experiences of patients and professionals in China

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 397-403

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00685.x

Keywords

traditional Chinese medicine; complementary and alternative medicine; cancer care; supportive care; symptom control; cross-cultural studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely used in Chinese cancer centres, it is a brand new area for formal scientific evaluation. As the first step of developing a research programme on clinical evaluation of TCM for cancer patients, we conducted a qualitative study to explore the perspectives and experiences of Chinese cancer patients and TCM professionals. Twenty-eight persons participated in two cancer patient focus groups and one professional focus group. Semi-structured interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and translated. Textual transcripts and field notes underwent inductive thematic analysis. We found that patients' decision to use TCM for cancer is a self-help process with a deep cultural grounding, which is related to the traditional Chinese philosophy of life. Participants perceived TCM to be an effective and harmless therapy. They highly valued the fact that TCM is tailored to patients, and believed it was the basis of an optimal and safe treatment. Participants also highlighted the long-term positive effects, the benefit of group interventions and the low cost as important features of TCM. Subjects believed that conducting clinical research would be crucial for the recognition and dissemination of TCM in Western countries. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to the knowledge base on the current TCM use for cancer in China, and to provide useful information for developing future clinical research in this area in Western countries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available