Limits...
Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Attitudes and Beliefs about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Use among Cancer Patients.

Mao JJ, Palmer SC, Desai K, Li SQ, Armstrong K, Xie SX - Evid Based Complement Alternat Med (2012)

Bottom Line: These domains had Eigenvalues of 4.79, 2.37, and 1.43, and together explained over 57.2% of the variance.The 4-item expected benefits, 7-item perceived barriers, and 4-item subjective norms domain scores, each had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.91, 0.76, and 0.75, respectively.As expected, CAM users had higher expected benefits, lower perceived barriers, and more positive subjective norms (all P < 0.001) than those who did not use CAM.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.

ABSTRACT
Despite cancer patients' extensive use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), validated instruments to measure attitudes, and beliefs predictive of CAM use are lacking. We aimed at developing and validating an instrument, attitudes and beliefs about CAM (ABCAM). The 15-item instrument was developed using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework. The literature review, qualitative interviews, expert content review, and cognitive interviews were used to develop the instrument, which was then administered to 317 outpatient oncology patients. The ABCAM was best represented as a 3-factor structure: expected benefits, perceived barriers, and subjective norms related to CAM use by cancer patients. These domains had Eigenvalues of 4.79, 2.37, and 1.43, and together explained over 57.2% of the variance. The 4-item expected benefits, 7-item perceived barriers, and 4-item subjective norms domain scores, each had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.91, 0.76, and 0.75, respectively. As expected, CAM users had higher expected benefits, lower perceived barriers, and more positive subjective norms (all P < 0.001) than those who did not use CAM. Our study provides the initial evidence that the ABCAM instrument produced reliable and valid scores that measured attitudes and beliefs related to CAM use among cancer patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

ABCAM domain scores by CAM users versus non-CAM users.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369496&req=5

fig2: ABCAM domain scores by CAM users versus non-CAM users.

Mentions: Among the participants, 192 (60.6%) of participants had used at least one type of CAM therapy since cancer diagnosis. The most common approaches were vitamin supplements (120, 34.0%), relaxation techniques (77, 24.4%), herbs (75, 23.8%), special diet (64, 20.5%), and massage therapy (55, 17.4%). As hypothesized, CAM users had higher expected benefits (65.2 versus 52.1, t = −5.79, P < 0.001), lower perceived barriers (43.9 versus 50.7, t = 3.62, P < 0.001), and more positive subjective norms (52.3 versus 45.2, t = −4.96, P < 0.001) associated with CAM than those who did not use CAM (see Figure 2).


Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Attitudes and Beliefs about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Use among Cancer Patients.

Mao JJ, Palmer SC, Desai K, Li SQ, Armstrong K, Xie SX - Evid Based Complement Alternat Med (2012)

ABCAM domain scores by CAM users versus non-CAM users.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369496&req=5

fig2: ABCAM domain scores by CAM users versus non-CAM users.
Mentions: Among the participants, 192 (60.6%) of participants had used at least one type of CAM therapy since cancer diagnosis. The most common approaches were vitamin supplements (120, 34.0%), relaxation techniques (77, 24.4%), herbs (75, 23.8%), special diet (64, 20.5%), and massage therapy (55, 17.4%). As hypothesized, CAM users had higher expected benefits (65.2 versus 52.1, t = −5.79, P < 0.001), lower perceived barriers (43.9 versus 50.7, t = 3.62, P < 0.001), and more positive subjective norms (52.3 versus 45.2, t = −4.96, P < 0.001) associated with CAM than those who did not use CAM (see Figure 2).

Bottom Line: These domains had Eigenvalues of 4.79, 2.37, and 1.43, and together explained over 57.2% of the variance.The 4-item expected benefits, 7-item perceived barriers, and 4-item subjective norms domain scores, each had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.91, 0.76, and 0.75, respectively.As expected, CAM users had higher expected benefits, lower perceived barriers, and more positive subjective norms (all P < 0.001) than those who did not use CAM.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.

ABSTRACT
Despite cancer patients' extensive use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), validated instruments to measure attitudes, and beliefs predictive of CAM use are lacking. We aimed at developing and validating an instrument, attitudes and beliefs about CAM (ABCAM). The 15-item instrument was developed using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework. The literature review, qualitative interviews, expert content review, and cognitive interviews were used to develop the instrument, which was then administered to 317 outpatient oncology patients. The ABCAM was best represented as a 3-factor structure: expected benefits, perceived barriers, and subjective norms related to CAM use by cancer patients. These domains had Eigenvalues of 4.79, 2.37, and 1.43, and together explained over 57.2% of the variance. The 4-item expected benefits, 7-item perceived barriers, and 4-item subjective norms domain scores, each had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of 0.91, 0.76, and 0.75, respectively. As expected, CAM users had higher expected benefits, lower perceived barriers, and more positive subjective norms (all P < 0.001) than those who did not use CAM. Our study provides the initial evidence that the ABCAM instrument produced reliable and valid scores that measured attitudes and beliefs related to CAM use among cancer patients.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus