4.6 Article

Complementary and alternative medicine use in pediatric cancer reported during palliative phase of disease

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 1857-1863

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-010-1029-0

关键词

Complementary therapy; Children; Cancer; CAM

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute of Canada [016388]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of this study were to assess the frequency, types, and potential determinants of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, and consideration of CAM use, collected from parents with children during the palliative phase of disease. Eligible parent respondents were identified by their primary care team. Demographic information and questionnaires were completed by the parent in the presence of a research nurse (DT). We conducted univariate logistic regression to identify predictors of parents who considered CAM use and children who actually used CAM. Descriptions of types of CAM were categorized according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. A total of 77 parents participated. Only 22 children (29%) had received some type of CAM, with 42 parents (55%) having considered its use for their child. Whole medical systems (n = 17) and biologically based therapies (n = 15) were the most frequently considered CAM, with whole medical systems (n = 6) being the most frequently used CAM. Family and disease variables were not indicative of CAM use. However, parents with higher education and those with a family member with cancer were more likely to consider CAM use, while parents were less likely to consider CAM as children were farther from time of relapse. The study provides initial insight into CAM use, and consideration of use, in children with cancer receiving palliative care. Further research is required to determine if the gap between CAM use and consideration is important, why this gap exists, and whether CAM has beneficial effects in this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据