These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Complementary-alternative medicine among cancer patients in the western region of Turkey.
    Author: Tarhan O, Alacacioglu A, Somali I, Sipahi H, Zencir M, Oztop I, Dirioz M, Yilmaz U.
    Journal: J BUON; 2009; 14(2):265-9. PubMed ID: 19650177.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To investigate the complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) applications and factors affecting its use among cancer patients in the western region of Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Face-to-face interview technique was used. Patients were asked to answer a questionnaire about their socio-demographic features, their level of knowledge about the disease and CAM application features. RESULTS: 220 adult cancer patients (79 male) were evaluated. Ninety-three (42.3%) were using at least one CAM method, the most common being herbal products which were preferred by 81 (36.3%) patients. Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) was the most commonly used herbal product. Next was nutritional support, preferred by 45 (20.3%) patients. Eighty- nine (44.5%) of 200 patients who knew the diagnosis and 4 of 20 (20%) who did not were using CAM. In the patient group with awareness of the diagnosis, CAM application was significantly higher (p=0.034). CAM applications were detected in 34 of 70 (48.5%) patients with recurrent disease while 54 of 150 (36%) patients without recurrent disease were using CAM. The CAM applications were significantly higher in the group with recurrent disease (p=0.006). Fifty-three of 103 (51.4%) patients who had advanced disease were using CAM, while only 40 of 117 (34.1%) patients with local or locally advanced disease were using it. CAM applications were significantly higher in the group with advanced disease (p=0.030). Besides, knowing the diagnosis and disease recurrence were also independent risk factors for CAM usage [odds ratio (OR(: 3.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-9.8 and OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.2-4.0 respectively]. As a result, nearly half of the patients (42.3%) in this region were using at least one of the CAM methods. CONCLUSION: The severity of the disease (recurrence and dissemination) and patients' awareness of the diagnosis were the most important factors affecting the CAM applications.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]