Limits...
Prayer-for-health and complementary alternative medicine use among Malaysian breast cancer patients during chemotherapy.

Chui PL, Abdullah KL, Wong LP, Taib NA - BMC Complement Altern Med (2014)

Bottom Line: The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183.Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia. chuipinglei@um.edu.my.

ABSTRACT

Background: The inclusion of prayer-for-health (PFH) in the definition of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) has resulted in higher levels of CAM use. The objective of this study was to assess PFH and CAM use among breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.

Results: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.

Conclusion: CAM use was prevalent among breast cancer patients. Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use. Overall, CAM use was associated with higher education levels and household incomes, advanced cancer and lower chemotherapy schedule compliance. Many patients perceived MBP to be beneficial for improving overall well-being during chemotherapy. These findings, while preliminary, clearly indicate the differences in CAM use when PFH is included in, and excluded from, the definition of CAM.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Overlap in CAM use when prayer-for-health (PFH) is included in, and excluded from, CAM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230750&req=5

Fig2: Overlap in CAM use when prayer-for-health (PFH) is included in, and excluded from, CAM.

Mentions: When PFH was included in the definition of CAM, the most common CAM use was MBPs (88.6%), followed by NPs (77.5%), and TM (33.4%). When PFH was excluded from the CAM definition, the total number of patients who performed MBPs decreased from 88.6% (n = 342) to 50.7% (n = 183). The most common CAM use became NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). Three-quarters (76.7%, n = 296) of CAM users (PFH included in CAM) and over one-half (54.8%, n = 198) of CAM users (PFH excluded from CAM) used a combination of MBPs or/and NPs or/and TM. Figure 2 presents the results for the comparison between MBPs, NPs, and TM use when PFH was included in the definition of CAM and when PFH was excluded from the definition of CAM.Figure 2


Prayer-for-health and complementary alternative medicine use among Malaysian breast cancer patients during chemotherapy.

Chui PL, Abdullah KL, Wong LP, Taib NA - BMC Complement Altern Med (2014)

Overlap in CAM use when prayer-for-health (PFH) is included in, and excluded from, CAM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230750&req=5

Fig2: Overlap in CAM use when prayer-for-health (PFH) is included in, and excluded from, CAM.
Mentions: When PFH was included in the definition of CAM, the most common CAM use was MBPs (88.6%), followed by NPs (77.5%), and TM (33.4%). When PFH was excluded from the CAM definition, the total number of patients who performed MBPs decreased from 88.6% (n = 342) to 50.7% (n = 183). The most common CAM use became NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). Three-quarters (76.7%, n = 296) of CAM users (PFH included in CAM) and over one-half (54.8%, n = 198) of CAM users (PFH excluded from CAM) used a combination of MBPs or/and NPs or/and TM. Figure 2 presents the results for the comparison between MBPs, NPs, and TM use when PFH was included in the definition of CAM and when PFH was excluded from the definition of CAM.Figure 2

Bottom Line: The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183.Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia. chuipinglei@um.edu.my.

ABSTRACT

Background: The inclusion of prayer-for-health (PFH) in the definition of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) has resulted in higher levels of CAM use. The objective of this study was to assess PFH and CAM use among breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.

Results: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.

Conclusion: CAM use was prevalent among breast cancer patients. Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use. Overall, CAM use was associated with higher education levels and household incomes, advanced cancer and lower chemotherapy schedule compliance. Many patients perceived MBP to be beneficial for improving overall well-being during chemotherapy. These findings, while preliminary, clearly indicate the differences in CAM use when PFH is included in, and excluded from, the definition of CAM.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus