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

Reasons for CAM use among patients.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig3: Reasons for CAM use among patients.

Mentions: The main reason for using MBPs was the perception that CAM use improves emotional well-being (92.0% when PFH was included in CAM vs. 84.0% when PFH was excluded from CAM). Patients used NPs because they were recommended by others (68.2%). The use of TM was perceived to be an effective cancer treatment (46.4%). A minority of NP users (10.0%) and TM users (7.1%) reported that they expected these interventions to cure their cancer (Figure 3).Figure 3


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)

Reasons for CAM use among patients.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig3: Reasons for CAM use among patients.
Mentions: The main reason for using MBPs was the perception that CAM use improves emotional well-being (92.0% when PFH was included in CAM vs. 84.0% when PFH was excluded from CAM). Patients used NPs because they were recommended by others (68.2%). The use of TM was perceived to be an effective cancer treatment (46.4%). A minority of NP users (10.0%) and TM users (7.1%) reported that they expected these interventions to cure their cancer (Figure 3).Figure 3

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