Abstract
Background
We aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers, and to assess the knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM use in oncology among health care professionals.
Methods
This is a cross-sectional questionnaire survey conducted in a single institution in Ireland. Survey was performed in outpatient and inpatient settings involving cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers. Clinicians and allied health care professionals were asked to complete a different questionnaire.
Results
In 676 participants including 219 cancer patients; 301 non-cancer volunteers and 156 health care professionals, the overall prevalence of CAM use was 32.5% (29.1%, 30.9% and 39.7% respectively in the three study cohorts). Female gender (p < 0.001), younger age (p = 0.004), higher educational background (p < 0.001), higher annual household income (p = 0.001), private health insurance (p = 0.001) and non-Christian (p < 0.001) were factors associated with more likely CAM use. Multivariate analysis identified female gender (p < 0.001), non-Christian (p = 0.001) and private health insurance (p = 0.015) as independent predictors of CAM use. Most health care professionals thought they did not have adequate knowledge (58.8%) nor were up to date with the best evidence (79.2%) on CAM use in oncology. Health care professionals who used CAM were more likely to recommend it to patients (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study demonstrates a similarly high prevalence of CAM use among oncology health care professionals, cancer and non cancer patients. Patients are more likely to disclose CAM usage if they are specifically asked. Health care professionals are interested to learn more about various CAM therapies and have poor evidence-based knowledge on specific oncology treatments. There is a need for further training to meet to the escalation of CAM use among patients and to raise awareness of potential benefits and risks associated with these therapies.
Background
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is 'a comprehensive term used to refer both to traditional medical systems such as traditional Chinese medicine, Indian ayurveda and Arabic unani medicine, and to various forms of indigenous medicine' [1]. The use of CAM has gained enormous popularity among the general public and numerous surveys have reported particularly high prevalence of use in cancer patients [2-5]. Previous studies demonstrated that patients were using CAM without obtaining enough information regarding these therapies [5]. Documented figures of up to 60% of these patients did not disclose their CAM usage to the doctors, and most cited reason was that their doctors did not ask them [4,5]. These findings highlighted the lack of awareness of CAM usage among health care professionals. This could have important oncologic implications due to potential drug-herb-vitamin interactions. For example, shark cartilage has been found to have no effect on tumour growth in clinical trials, but caused severe gastrointestinal toxicity [6,7]. More importantly, St. John's Wort was associated with significantly reduced plasma levels of SN-38, the active metabolite of chemotherapeutic agent, Irinotecan [8]. The majority of novel anticancer treatments are studied in advanced cancer patients and this cohort has been shown to use CAM more frequently [9]. This can be a confounding factor potentially leading to under- or over-estimated drug levels, toxicity, side effect profiles, drug-herb-vitamin interactions and unreliable clinical trial data [10].
Previous surveys in cancer patients have mainly focused on the prevalence and predictors of CAM usage [2-5,9]. In Ireland, the prevalence of CAM use in oncology has been reported in a selected cohort of patients with head and neck cancer [11]. Few studies have assessed the attitudes and perceptions of health care professionals toward CAM use in oncology. Richardson et al reported negative perceptions on CAM by clinical oncologists and Hyodo et al reported discrepant views on CAM between oncologist and cancer patients [12,13]. Risberg et al investigated oncology professionals' knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM in a group of oncologists, nurses, clerks and interventional radiographers [14]. However, the study cohorts did not represent all the members of the current multidisciplinary team. Furthermore, these studies did not assess patients and health care professionals' attitudes and perceptions simultaneously [13,14], which may enable better understanding of the interactions between the two parties. Lastly, health care professionals' knowledge of the use of CAM therapies in specific cancer-related clinical conditions has not previously been investigated.
The aims of this study were therefore to a) investigate the interest and prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients attending a tertiary referral centre in Ireland; b) determine factors associated with CAM usage; (c) assess communications between health care professionals and patients by obtaining opinions and experience from both parties; and (d) investigate health care professionals' knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM.
Methods
Participants
This was a single centre cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited between July and August 2008. Three study cohorts were included in this study, namely cancer patients, non-cancer volunteers and health care professionals. The study was granted approval by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the University College Hospital Galway. Patients and volunteers were accrued after explanation of the nature of the survey both in verbal and written format, followed by verbal consent. Cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers were identified from the outpatient clinics, inpatient wards, oncology day ward and radiotherapy department. Cancer patients were patients who have been diagnosed with any cancer in the past. Non-cancer volunteers were patients who were on the wards or attending outpatient clinic for reasons other than cancer, or visitors. Thirty-six consultants across 13 specialties (breast and endocrine surgery; general and gastrointestinal surgery; plastics and reconstructive surgery; urology; head and neck surgery; obstetrics and gynaecology; medical oncology; radiation oncology; dermatology; respiratory medicine; palliative medicine; neurology and haematology) gave permission to have their patients recruited in this study. The study was coordinated by a postgraduate researcher and a medical student undertaking summer research project. Nurses at each study location assisted with the accrual process.
Health care professionals consisted of doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, speech and language, and occupational therapists. All of these health care professionals are involved in the care of cancer patients. Doctors and nurses were asked to complete the questionnaire at various locations within the hospital. For other allied health care professionals, questionnaires were distributed to the corresponding departments.
Questionnaires
We utilised a modified version of a previously published questionnaire validated in Japan [5]. Prior to the commencement of the survey, the questionnaire was distributed to all participating consultants for review. The structure was further modified and questions reworded according to consultants' feedback. The anonymised questionnaire collected data on sociodemographics; use of CAM and specific details such as types of CAM, expectations and reasons for use; cancer-related characteristics and treatment (additional files 1 and 2). The questionnaire also incorporated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) which is a validated brief 14-item scoring system to assess emotional state [15]. Data was also collected on the location of consultation, stage of cancer and a simplified Karnofsky performance status score.
The questionnaire distributed to health care professionals was composed of questions regarding their specialties and positions; use of CAM; attitudes towards CAM and previous experience during consultations. Five quiz-like questions regarding the use of CAM in specific cancer-related scenarios were incorporated to determine if health care professionals were up to date with the best available evidence (additional files 1 and 2). The 'correct' answers to these questions were based on level 1a evidence [16-20].
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0 software (Chicago, IL, USA). Univariate comparison of variables was assessed using χ2 test for nominal or ordinal data; Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for parametric and non-parametric continuous data respectively. Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression with forward conditional method. Variables that were significant on univariate analyses were entered into the regression model. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests.
Results
Characteristics of Participants
A total of 728 participants were asked to complete the questionnaire, 52 were excluded from subsequent analysis as 5 were erroneously filled out by clerical staff and 47 had excessive missing information. Therefore, 676 questionnaires were valid for analysis including 301 completed by non-cancer volunteers, 219 by cancer patients and 156 by health care professionals. The majority of participants were Caucasians. Nineteen different malignancies were represented in the cancer patient cohort. The prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients, non-cancer volunteers and health care professionals were 29.1%, 30.9% and 39.7% respectively. The prevalence rate in the entire study cohort was 32.5%. Characteristics of cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers are summarised in Table 1, and characteristics of health care professionals are summarised in Table 2.
Table 1.
Characteristics of patient participants
| Variables | Number of Participants | Number of CAM Users (%) | p value (χ2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 520 | 155 (29.8) | |
| Gender | <0.001 | ||
| Male | 186 | 29 (15.6) | |
| Female | 330 | 124 (37.6) | |
| Missing | 4 | 2 | |
| Age* | 52.5 ± 16.9 | 49.1 ± 15.5 | 0.004† |
| Ethnicity | 0.385 | ||
| Caucasian | 497 | 149 (30.0) | |
| Non-Caucasian | 4 | 2 | |
| Missing | 19 | 4 | |
| Educational background | <0.001 | ||
| Primary level | 97 | 11 (11.3) | |
| Secondary level | 255 | 74 (29.0) | |
| Tertiary level | 154 | 66 (42.9) | |
| Missing | 13 | 4 | |
| Annual household income | 0.001 | ||
| <€20 000 | 197 | 43 (21.8) | |
| €20 000 - €49 999 | 161 | 50 (31.1) | |
| €50 000 - €99 999 | 71 | 33 (46.5) | |
| >€100 000 | 12 | 5 (41.7) | |
| Missing | 79 | 24 | |
| Health insurance | 0.001 | ||
| None | 71 242 | 26 (36.6) 52 (21.5) | |
| Public Medical Card | |||
| Private Health Insurance | 200 | 76 (38.0%) | |
| Missing | 7 | 1 | |
| Religions | 0.001 | ||
| Christian | 486 | 138 (28.4) | |
| Non-Christian | 15 | 11 (73.3) | |
| Missing | 19 | 6 | |
| Subgroups | 0.369 | ||
| Non-cancer volunteers | 301 | 93 (30.9) | |
| Cancer patients | 219 | 62 ((28.3) | |
| Breast | 81 | 27 (33.3) | 0.667 |
| Colorectal | 23 | 4 | |
| Lymphoma | 17 | 6 | |
| Leukaemia | 13 | 3 | |
| Prostate | 12 | 3 | |
| Lung | 12 | 2 | |
| Ovarian | 12 | 5 | |
| Melanoma | 12 | 6 | |
| Head & Neck | 7 | 0 | |
| Oesophagus | 5 | 1 | |
| Kidney | 5 | 1 | |
| Brain | 4 | 1 | |
| Cervix | 3 | 1 | |
| Stomach | 3 | 0 | |
| Testicle | 2 | 0 | |
| Urinary bladder | 2 | 0 | |
| Non-melanoma skin | 2 | 1 | |
| Pancreatic | 1 | 1 | |
| Myeloma | 1 | 0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 0 | |
| HADS | |||
| High anxiety score (≥11) | 44 | 13 (29.5) | 0.350 |
| Low anxiety score (<11) | 333 | 112 (33.6) | |
| Missing | 143 | 30 | |
| High depression score (≥11) | 13 | 3 (23.1) | 0.328 |
| Low depression score (<11) | 386 | 128 (33.2) | |
| Missing | 121 | 24 | |
| Karnofsky score | 0.493 | ||
| 80 - 100 | 106 | 33 (31.1) | |
| 50 - 70 | 36 | 7 (19.4) | |
| 0 - 40 | 6 | 1 (16.7) | |
| Missing | 76 | 24 | |
* mean ± standard deviation
† student's t-test
Table 2.
Characteristics of health care professional participants
| Variables | Number of Participants | Number of CAM Users (%) | p value (χ2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 156 | 62 (39.7) | |
| Gender | 0.001 | ||
| Male | 38 | 7 (18.4) | |
| Female | 118 | 55 (46.6) | |
| Age* | 31.1 ± 7.3 | 33.3 ± 8.6 | 0.001† |
| Ethnicity | 0.211 | ||
| Caucasian | 136 | 56 (41.2) | |
| Non-Caucasian | 18 | 5 | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
| Professions | 0.050 | ||
| Doctors | 59 | 17 (28.8) | |
| Nurses | 61 27 | 30 (49.2) | |
| Physiotherapists | 27 | 10 (37.0) | |
| Pharmacists | 5 | 4 (80.0) | |
| Occupational therapists | 2 | 0 | |
| S&L therapists | 2 | 1 | |
* mean ± standard deviation
† student's t-test
S&L therapists, speech and language therapists
Types of CAM Use
Biologically-based and orally ingested CAM such as natural supplements (i.e. Probiotics, fish oil, flax seeds, melatonin, etc.), vitamins, green tea and herbal or folk remedies (i.e. garlic, ginger, Essiac, aloe vera, ginseng, Laetrile, etc.) were the most commonly used CAM in the study cohorts. Manipulative and body-based practices such as massage therapy, acupuncture, yoga and chiropractic therapy were popular among CAM users. Energy medicine (i.e. energy healing, biofeedback, etc.), mind-body medicine (i.e. psychotherapy, meditation, etc.) and whole medical systems such as homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine were less commonly used. The types of CAM used in our study cohorts are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3.
Types of CAM used
| Types of CAM Used | Number of Users (%) |
|---|---|
| Natural supplements | 83 (53.9) |
| Vitamins | 78 (50.6) |
| Green tea | 62 (40.3) |
| Massage therapy | 51 (33.1) |
| Herbal remedies | 50 (30.5) |
| Acupuncture | 40 (26.1) |
| Yoga | 35 (22.7) |
| Homeopathy | 26 (16.9) |
| Chinese herbal medicine | 25 (16.2) |
| Chiropractic | 20 (13.0) |
| Meditation | 15 (9.7) |
| Energy healing | 14 (9.1) |
| Spiritual practice | 13 (8.5) |
| Music/art therapy | 12 (7.8) |
| Tai Chi | 10 (6.5) |
| Psychotherapy | 8 (5.2) |
| Hypnotherapy | 7 (4.5) |
| Biofeedback | 2 (1.3) |
| Others (Neuro Linguistic Programming) | 1 (0.6) |
Predictors of CAM Use
On univariate analysis, female gender (p < 0.001), younger age (p = 0.004), higher educational background (p < 0.001), higher annual household income (p = 0.001), private health care insurance (p = 0.001), non-Christian (p < 0.001) were found to be factors associated with more likely CAM usage. No association was found between ethnicity, HADS and CAM use (Table 1). Multivariate analysis identified female gender (p < 0.001), non-Christian (p = 0.001) and private health care insurance (p = 0.015) as independent predictive factors of CAM use (Table 4).
Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors predictive of CAM use
| Univariate | Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | p value | Likelihood Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | p value |
| Female gender | < 0.001 | 3.703 | 2.251-6.094 | < 0.001 |
| Younger age | 0.004 | - | NS | |
| Higher educational background | <0.001 | - | NS | |
| Higher annual household income | 0.001 | - | NS | |
| Private health insurance | 0.001 | 1.670 | 1.106-2.521 | 0.015 |
| Non-Christian | <0.001 | 10.587 | 3.000-37.359 | <0.001 |
NS, not significant.
In the cancer patient cohort, patients who received hormonal therapy were more likely to use CAM (p = 0.016). Interestingly, no association was found between CAM use and cancer stage, and Karnofsky performance status score.
Attitudes and Perceptions Toward CAM
Among 155 CAM users, reasons for using CAM were: 72 (51.1%) recommended by family or friends; 42 (29.8%) own will, 12 (8.5%) media influence and 6 (4.3%) recommended by doctor. Among the non-cancer volunteers, CAM users expected CAM to improve immune function (n = 79, 61.7%), general wellbeing (n = 20, 15.7%) and a small proportion expected CAM to prevent cancer (n = 8, 6.3%). On the other hand, the cancer patient cohort used CAM with the expectations that it would cure cancer (n = 1, 0.7%), halt cancer progression (n = 1, 0.7%), improve symptoms (n = 6, 4.1%), and 6 patients used it as a complementary to conventional treatments. When asked if they thought CAM was effective, the majority of CAM users (n = 93, 66.5%) either agreed or strongly agreed. Only 4 participants reported negative effects from CAM use (one constipation and diarrhoea; one drowsiness; one cough, sweating and weight gain; one urinary incontinence).
In 359 non-users, reasons for not using CAM were reported to be: did not have enough information about it (n = 150, 50.2%), no interest (n = 64, 21.4%), did not believe in it (n = 38, 12.7%), never needed it (n = 14, 4.7%), too expensive (n = 12, 4%), happy with conventional medicine (n = 5, 1.7%) and heard bad comments about it (n = 4, 1.3%). Interestingly, 151 (46.6%) of the non-users would like to learn more about CAM.
Among health care professionals, there was a significant association between CAM use and professions (p = 0.050). The prevalence of CAM use was the highest among pharmacist (4/5, 80%), followed by nurses (30/61, 49.2%), physiotherapists (10/27, 37.0%), and the least prevalent among doctors (17/59, 28.8%). Longer duration since qualification was associated with higher likelihood of CAM usage (p = 0.007). There was a high level of interest among health care professionals with 110 (75.3%) wanting to learn more about CAM.
Communications Between Health Care Professionals and Patients
In 155 CAM users, 43 (30.1%) voluntarily reported CAM use to their doctors. The doctors' response was reported to be: encouraged to continue (n = 16, 37.2%), advised to stop (n = 7, 16.3%), neither discouraged nor encouraged (n = 20, 46.5%), and doctor did not know about CAM (n = 4, 2.8%). Among patients who did not report CAM use voluntarily, only 8 were asked about its use by their doctors. The majority of patients did not mention CAM use because the doctor never asked (n = 47, 34.6%), some thought that the doctor would not understand (n = 5, 3.7%), or would disapprove (n = 8, 5.9%).
From the health care professionals perspective, when asked about their responses to patients regarding CAM use, 26 (17.2%) reported that they would encourage to continue, 5 (3.3%) advise to stop, 92 (60.9%) neither discourage nor encourage. Of these, 58 (38.2%) have been asked about CAM during consultations in the previous 6 months. A large proportion of health care professionals (n = 68, 45.9%) thought they would ask patients about CAM use, while 57 (38.8%) would recommend CAM to patients. Health care professionals who used CAM were more likely to recommend CAM to their patients (p = 0.001).
Health Care Professionals' Knowledge on CAM
Health care professionals were asked to self-rate their knowledge on CAM. With regards to having adequate knowledge, 1 strongly agreed, 22 (14.4%) agreed, 40 (26.1%) undecided, 62 (40.5%) disagreed and 28 (18.3%) strongly disagreed. When asked if they were up to date with the best available evidence on CAM use, none strongly agreed, 5 agreed, 27 (17.5%) undecided, 83 (53.9%) disagreed and 39 (25.3%) strongly disagreed.
Five questions based on level 1a evidence were designed to assess health care professionals' knowledge on the evidence-based CAM practices including: the role of acupuncture in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; Chinese herbal medicine for side-effects of chemotherapy; antioxidant for the prevention of lung cancer; oral fish oil for the treatment of cancer cachexia and ginger as an effective anti-emetic remedy. The answers provided are summarised in Table 5. The majority were undecided on all five questions highlighting the lack of knowledge.
Table 5.
Distribution of answers provided by health care professionals on evidence-based practices of CAM in cancer
| Numbers of Answers (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Questions | Strongly Agree | Agree | Undecided | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
| There is evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing first day vomiting after chemotherapy. | 1 (0.6) | 19 (12.3) | 128 (82.6) | 5 (3.2) | 2 (1.3) |
| There is evidence that Chinese herbs decrease side-effects in patients treated with chemotherapy. | 1 (0.6) | 11 (7.1) | 132 (85.7) | 8 (5.2) | 2 (1.3) |
| There is evidence to support recommending antioxidant vitamins such as α-tocopherol, beta-carotene or retinol to prevent lung cancer. | 0 | 12 (7.8) | 127 (82.5) | 9 (5.8) | 6 (3.9) |
| There is evidence to support the use of oral fish oil for the management of cancer cachexia. | 0 | 18 (11.7) | 126 (81.8) | 8 (5.2) | 2 (1.3) |
| There is evidence that ginger has a potential role as an antiemetic herbal remedy. | 10 (6.5) | 29 (18.8) | 109 (70.8) | 4 (2.6) | 2 (1.3) |
Bold fonts indicate the correct answers according to the best available evidence.
Discussion
In this study, we surveyed the prevalence of CAM use in three distinctive populations and investigated the prevalence, predictive factors, knowledge of and attitudes toward CAM use. The communication on CAM between health care professionals and cancer patients was explored.
One of the strengths of this study is the recruitment process. Participants were approached and invited to complete the questionnaires, instead of using mailed-questionnaire method. With the assistance of nurse coordinators, the response rate of our study was 100% among patients who were invited to participate. This eradicates selection bias inherently associated with most mail-based study design as patients who use CAM are more inclined to participate. One might argue that the prevalence rate of CAM use in this study may not be a true reflection of the entire population as participants were accrued from the hospital setting. However, the prevalence rate reported here is in keeping with previous large scale population surveys [2,21-23]. Furthermore, patients (cancer or non-cancer) and visitors included in this study are a representative group of individuals that hospital-based health care workers interact with on a daily basis and are therefore clinically relevant.
In our study, the prevalence of CAM use is high in all groups of participants, intriguingly, the highest among health care professionals. This would reflect the growing rates of CAM use and it is an encouraging finding as CAM becomes more acceptable in the society. There is no difference in CAM use between cancer patients and non-cancer volunteers, which is not consistent with previous reports [5,22-26]. This may be explained by the inclusion of patients suffering from chronic disorders other than cancer in the non-cancer volunteer cohort. Factors associated with increased CAM use such as female gender, younger age, higher socioeconomic status and private health insurance shown in our study are consistent with previous data [4,5,27,28]. Interestingly, patients with higher anxiety or depression score, more advanced disease stage and poorer performance status are not more likely to use CAM. Kristoffersen et al previously reported higher prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients with poorer prognosis [9]. The authors suggested that this may be due to patients resorting to non-conventional therapy when less hope of cure is given by the physicians. In contrast, other studies have demonstrated that CAM use is not associated with more advanced disease stage [29-31]. This may be related to the complexity of underlying psychological and behavioural mechanisms influencing the use of CAM in cancer patients such as attitude, family support and coping behaviour as have been shown by previous reports [32,33].
The most commonly used CAM is orally ingested agents such as natural supplements, vitamins, green tea and herbal remedies. This further highlights the importance of documentation of the intake of these substances as part of routine clerking and assessment of patients in order to avoid potential drug-herb-vitamin interactions particularly in patients undergoing chemo- or hormonal therapy. As demonstrated by our study, most patients do not inform their doctors about CAM use, mainly because the doctors never ask, or are perceived to be lack of CAM knowledge or disapproving. Therefore the initiatives to elicit CAM usage through history taking may be effective in obtaining such information.
There are numerous reports expressing communication gaps between health care professionals and patients on CAM. This is possibly related to the suboptimal evidence-based knowledge on these therapies but none of these studies had addressed this in detail [4,5,28,34-36]. To our knowledge, this is the first study that includes both health care professionals' attitudes toward CAM use in oncology and an assessment of their knowledge on these therapies. There is a significant discrepancy comparing patients and health care professionals' reported experience toward CAM. While only 8 of 155 CAM users were asked by their doctors about CAM use, a much higher proportion (45.9%) of health care professionals thought they would ask patients about its use. Similarly, only 17.2% of health care professionals would encourage patients to continue CAM, which is markedly different from experience reported by patients that 37.2% of doctors encouraged them to continue CAM when consulted.
When asked about their knowledge on CAM, the majority of health care professionals thought they did not have adequate knowledge (58.8%) nor were up to date with the best available evidence (79.2%) on CAM use. This is evident from answers provided by health care professionals to the five evidence-based CAM questions. Up to 80% were unsure of the roles of the aforementioned CAM practices in cancer-related scenarios, thereby not being able to advise patients regarding the benefits, limitations and even potential harms.
The findings of this study have major implications for undergraduate education. We demonstrated a high prevalence of CAM use in our study population consisting of cancer and non-cancer patients as well as health care workers. Despite the lack of awareness and knowledge on CAM, health care professionals expressed a high level of interest in CAM education. Until recently few allopathic medical students worldwide would have been exposed to the teaching of CAM. In recognition of the growing needs for medical graduates that have at least basic understanding of CAM in order to make appropriate referrals as part of integration of CAM into conventional medicine; several countries have incorporated CAM into undergraduate curricula such as the United States of America (USA), Finland, Germany, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Notably in Finland acupuncture has been part of the undergraduate curriculum since 1975. According to the worldwide review on CAM published by the World Health Organization, the majority of medical schools in the USA offer courses on CAM. Since 1997, primary care physicians have been encouraged to attend courses that enable them to incorporate homeopathy into practices. In Germany, medical schools are required to test students' knowledge of CAM. In Australia, acupuncturists form a part of the multidisciplinary management of patients in the public health sector. The British Medical Association recommends incorporating CAM into undergraduate curriculum and making accredited postgraduate training available [37]. University of Southampton commenced education on CAM as part of the Special Study Module (SSM) out of students' request [38]. As part of the Professionalism curriculum, CAM SSM has been made available at the National University of Ireland Galway for the last 2 years. The potential for incorporating CAM as part of a compulsory undergraduate curriculum remains to be evaluated.
Nevertheless there are some limitations to our study. The survey was carried out in a single institution involving generally defined populations of cancer patients, non-cancer volunteers and health care professionals. While further studies may be warranted to investigate the attitudes toward CAM in more specifically defined populations, the present study produced useful information on the overall prevalence of CAM use. The non-cancer volunteer cohort was accrued from the hospital environment, which may not be truly reflective of the general population. Furthermore, the questionnaire used in this study did not address the use of CAM within a specific time period or specifically in relation to cancer.
Conclusions
This survey demonstrates a high prevalence of CAM use among patients and health care professionals. Increased awareness of CAM use and potential drug-herb-vitamin interactions is critical for optimal patient care in oncology. The incorporation of CAM education into undergraduate medical curriculum may improve health care professionals' knowledge on CAM, thereby improving doctor-patient communication.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
KHC and MAC conceived of and designed the study. KHC performed statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. RB carried out the questionnaire survey. MAC helped to draft the manuscript. KJS and MJK participated throughout the study and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
Contributor Information
Kah Hoong Chang, Email: kahhoong_chang@yahoo.co.uk.
Rachel Brodie, Email: rachel.brodie86@gmail.com.
Mei Ann Choong, Email: meiannchoong@yahoo.co.uk.
Karl J Sweeney, Email: karljsweeney@gmail.com.
Michael J Kerin, Email: michael.kerin@nuigalway.ie.
References
- World Health Organization. WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002-2005. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js2297e/
- Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:246–252. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199301283280406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA. 1998;280:1569–1575. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.18.1569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richardson MA, Sanders T, Palmer JL, Greisinger A, Singletary SE. Complementary/alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer center and the implications for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2505–2514. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.13.2505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hyodo I, Amano N, Eguchi K, Narabayashi M, Imanishi J, Hirai M, Nakano T, Takashima S. Nationwide survey on complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients in Japan. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2645–2654. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Miller DR, Anderson GT, Stark JJ, Granick JL, Richardson D. Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage in the treatment of advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3649–3655. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.11.3649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Loprinzi CL, Levitt R, Barton DL, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ, Smith DJ, Dakhil SR, Moore DF Jr, Krook JE, Rowland KM Jr, Mazurczak MA, Berg AR, Kim GP. North Central cancer Treatment Group. Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment group trial. Cancer. 2005;104:176–182. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mathijssen RH, Verweij J, de Bruijn P, Loos WJ, Sparreboom A. Effects of St. John's wort on irinotecan metabolism: St. John's Wort--More implications for cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1247–1249. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.16.1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kristoffersen AE, Fonnebo V, Norheim AJ. Do cancer patients with a poor prognosis use complementary and alternative medicine more often than others? J Altern Complement Med. 2009;15:1115–1120. doi: 10.1089/acm.2009.0083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hlubocky FJ, Ratain MJ, Wen M, Daugherty CK. Complementary and alternative medicine among advanced cancer patients enrolled on phase I trials: a study of prognosis, quality of life, and preferences for decision making. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:548–554. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.9800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Amin M, Glynn F, Rowley S, O'Leary G, O'Dwyer T, Timon C, Kinsella J. Complementary medicine use in patients with head and neck cancer in Ireland. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267:1291–1297. doi: 10.1007/s00405-010-1223-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richardson MA, Masse LC, Nanny K, Sanders C. Discrepant views of oncologists and cancer patients on complementary/alternative medicine. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:797–804. doi: 10.1007/s00520-004-0677-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hyodo I, Eguchi K, Nishina T, Endo H, Tanimizu M, Mikami I, Takashima S, Imanishi J. Perceptions and attitudes of clinical oncologists on complementary and alternative medicine. Cancer. 2003;97:2861–2868. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Risberg T, Kolstad A, Bremnes Y, Holte H, Wist EA, Mella O, Klepp O, Wilsgaard T, Cassileth BR. Knowledge of and attitudes toward complementary and alternative therapies: a national multicentre study of oncology professionals in Norway. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:529–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hyodo I, Eguchi K, Takigawa N, Segawa Y, Hosokawa Y, Kamejima K, Inoue R. Psychological impact of informed consent in hospitalized cancer patients: A sequential study of anxiety and depression using the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:396–399. doi: 10.1007/s005200050299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ezzo J, Vickers A, Richardson MA, Allen C, Dibble SL, Issell B, Lao L, Pearl M, Ramirez G, Roscoe JA, Shen J, Shivnan JC, Streitberger K, Treish I, Zhang G. Acupuncture-Point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7188–7198. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taixiang W, Munro AJ, Guanjian L. Chinese medical herbs for chemotherapy side effects in colorectal cancer patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;1:CD004540. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004540.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Caraballoso M, Sacristan M, Serra C, Bonfill X. Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;2:CD002141. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dewey A, Baughan C, Dean T, Higgins B, Johnson I. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, an omega-3 fatty acid from fish oils) for the treatment of cancer cachexia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;1:CD004597. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004597.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ernst E, Pittler MH. Efficacy of ginger for nausea and vomiting: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2007;84:367–371. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. BMJ. 1994;309:107–111. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6947.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet. 1996;347:569–573. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91271-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fox P, Coughlan B, Butler M, Kelleher C. Complementary alternative medicine (CAM) use in Ireland: a secondary analysis of SLAN data. Complement Ther Med. 2010;18:95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2010.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rees RW, Feigal I, Vickers A, Zollman C, McGurk R, Smith C. Prevalence of complementary therapy use by women with breast cancer: a population-based survey. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1359–1364. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00099-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paltier O, Avitzour M, Peretz T, Cherny N, Kaduri L, Pfeffer RM, Wagner N, Soskolne V. Determinants of the use of complementary therapies by patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2439–2448. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.9.2439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malassiotis A, Fernandez-Ortega P, Pud D, Ozden G, Scott JA, Panteli V, Margulies A, Browall M, Magri M, Selvekerova S, Madsen E, Milovics L, Bruyns I, Gudmundsdottir G, Hummerston S, Ahmad AM, Platin N, Kearney N, Patiraki E. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:655–663. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gansler T, Kaw C, Crammer C, Smith T. A population-based study of prevalence of complementary methods use by cancer survivors. Cancer. 2008;113:1048–1057. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Corner J, Yardley J, Maher EJ, Roffe L, Young T, Maslin-Prothero S, Gwilliam C, Haviland J, Lewith G. Patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use among patients undergoing cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer Care. 2009;18:271–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00911.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Munstedt K, Kirsch K, Milch W, Sachsse S, Vahrson H. Unconventional cancer therapy: Survey of patients with gynecological malignancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1996;258:81–88. doi: 10.1007/BF00626028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Begbie SD, Kerestes ZL, Bell DR. Patterns of alternative medicine use by cancer patients. Med J Aust. 1996;165:545–548. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb138639.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Risberg T, Lund E, Wist E, Dahl O, Sundstrøm S, Andersen OK, Kaasa S. The use of non-proven therapy among patients treated in Norwegian oncological departments: A cross-sectional national multicenter study. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:1785–1789. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00328-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hirai K, Komura K, Tokoro A, Kuromaru T, Ohshima A, Ito T, Sumiyoshi Y, Hyodo I. Psychological and behavioral mechanisms influencing the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:49–55. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sollner W, Maislinger S, DeVries A, Steixner E, Rumpold G, Lukas P. Use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients is not associated with perceived distress or poor compliance with standard treatment but with active coping behavior. Cancer. 2000;89:873–880. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<873::AID-CNCR21>3.0.CO;2-K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gratus C, Wilson S, Greenfield SM, Damery SL, Warmington SA, Grieve R, Steven NM, Routledge P. The use of herbal medicines by people with cancer: a qualitative study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009;9:14. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-9-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shih V, Chiang JYL, Chan A. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage in Singaporean adult cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:752–757. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robinson A, McGrail MR. Disclosure of CAM use to medical practitioners: a review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Complement Ther Med. 2004;12:90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2004.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Legal status of traditional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine: a worldwide review. World Health Organization; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Owen DK, Lewith G, Stephens CR. Can doctors respond to patients' increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicine? BMJ. 2001;322:154–158. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7279.154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]