4.5 Article

Complementary and alternative medicine use in colorectal cancer patients in seven European countries

Journal

COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 251-257

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2005.07.002

Keywords

complementary medicine; alternative medicine; complementary therapies; colorectal cancer; Europe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to examine the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in a sample of colorectal cancer patients in Europe. Methods: The study was a descriptive cross-sectional survey and data were collected through a 27-item self-reported questionnaire from seven European countries. Results: As part of a Larger study, 126 colorectal cancer patients participated in this survey. Among the participants, 32% used CAM after the diagnosis of cancer. Almost half the CAM therapies used were new therapies, never tried before the diagnosis. The most common CAM therapies included herbal medicine (48.7%), homeopathy (20.5%), use of vitamins/minerals (17.9%), spiritual therapies (15.4%), medicinal teas (15.4%) and relaxation techniques (12.8%). A dramatic increase was observed in the use of CAM from usage levels before the cancer diagnosis. High levels of satisfaction with CAM were also reported. Patients used CAM more often to increase the body's ability to fight the cancer or to improve physical welt-being. However, expectations did not always match with the benefits reported. Conclusions: As one-third of colorectal cancer patients use CAM, health professionals should be more aware of this approach to the patient's management. They should discuss the role of CAM therapies with their patients in a non-judgemental and open manner, and endeavour to provide accurate information in order to allow patients to make their own decision about CAM. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available