Dataset Information

Factors associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicines for prostate cancer by long-term survivors.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether the use of complementary and alternative medicines therapies (CAMs) for prostate cancer and/or its treatment side effects by long-term survivors is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and/or psychological factors.

Design, setting and participants

The Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS) is a population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer who were aged less than 70 years at diagnosis in New South Wales, Australia. Included in these analyses were men who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire, which included questions about CAM use.

Methods

Validated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of current CAM use for prostate cancer according to socio-demographic, clinical, HRQOL and psychological factors.

Results

996 of 1634 (61%) living PCOS participants completed the 10-year questionnaire. Of these 996 men, 168 (17%) were using CAMs for prostate cancer and 525 (53%) were using CAMs for any reason (including prostate cancer). Those using CAM for prostate cancer were more likely to be regular or occasional support group participants (vs. no participation RR = 2.02; 95%CI 1.41-2.88), born in another country (vs. Australian born RR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.17-2.16), have received androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) since diagnosis (RR = 1.60; 95%CI 1.12-2.28) or in the past two years (RR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.56-3.52). CAM use was associated with greater fear of recurrence (RR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.12-1.48), cancer-specific distress (RR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.01-1.30), cancer-specific hyperarousal (RR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31), cancer locus of control (RR = 1.16; 95%CI 1.01-1.34) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (RR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.76-0.97), but not with intrusive thinking, cognitive avoidance, depression, anxiety or any HRQOL domains.

Conclusions

In this study, about one in six long term prostate cancer survivors used CAMs for their prostate cancer with use centred around ADT, country of birth, distress, cancer control, fear of recurrence and active help seeking.

SUBMITTER: Egger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5841769 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the use of diet and the use of exercise for prostate cancer (and/or its treatments' side effects) by long-term survivors and whether such use is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and psychological factors. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Population-based cohort study in New South Wales, Australia of prostate cancer survivors aged <70 years at diagnosis and who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire. METHODS:Validated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative proportions (RRs) of prostate cancer survivor groups who were currently eating differently ('using diet') or exercise differently ('using exercise') to help with their prostate cancer. RESULTS:996 (61.0% of 1634) participants completed the 10-year questionnaire of whom 118 (11.8%; 95%CI[9.8-13.9]) were using diet and 78 (7.8%; 95%CI[6.2-9.5]) were using exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Men were more likely to use diet or use exercise for prostate cancer if they were younger (p-trend = 0.020 for diet, p-trend = 0.045 for exercise), more educated (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.011), support group participants (p-nominal<0.001, p-nominal = 0.005), had higher Gleason score at diagnosis (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.002) and had knowledge of cancer spread (p-nominal = 0.002, p-nominal = 0.001). Use of diet was also associated with receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 1.59; 95%CI[1.04-2.45]), a greater fear of cancer recurrence (p-trend = 0.010), cognitive avoidance (p-trend = 0.025) and greater perceived control of cancer course (p-trend = 0.014). Use of exercise was also associated with receipt of prostatectomy (RR = 2.02; 95%CI[1.12-3.63]), receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 2.20; 95%CI[1.34-3.61]) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (p-trend = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS:Few long-term prostate cancer survivors use diet or exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Survivors may benefit from counselling on the scientific evidence supporting healthy eating and regular exercise for improving quality-of-life and cancer-related outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Integrative and complementary health approaches (ICHA) are often pursued by patients facing chronic illnesses. Most of the studies that investigated the factors associated with ICHA consumption have considered that the propensity to use ICHA is a stable or fixed characteristic of an individual. However, people may prefer using ICHA in some situations and not in others, depending on the characteristics of the illness to face. Moreover, the attitude toward ICHA may differ within a single individual and between individuals so that ICHA can be used either in addition to (i.e., complementary attitude) or in place of (i.e., alternative attitude). The present study aimed at examining distinct patterns of attitudes toward ICHA in people hypothetically facing chronic illnesses that differed according to severity and clinical expression. METHODS:We conducted a web-based study including 1807 participants who were asked to imagine that they had a particular chronic illness based on clinical vignettes (mental illnesses: depression, schizophrenia; somatic illnesses: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis). Participants were invited to rate their perceived distress and social stigma associated with each illness as well as its perceived treatability. They also rated their belief in treatment effectiveness, and their treatment preference. Four patterns of treatment choice were determined: strictly conventional, weak or strong complementary, and alternative. Bayesian methods were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS:ICHA were selected as complementary treatment option by more than 95% of people who hypothetically faced chronic illness. The complementary attitude towards ICHA (in addition to conventional treatment) was more frequent than the alternative one (in place of conventional treatment). Factors driving this preference included employment status, severity of illness, age and perceived distress, social stigma and treatability of the illness. When the label of illnesses was included in the vignettes, patterns of treatment preference were altered. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides evidence that "medical pluralism" (i.e., the integration of ICHA with conventional treatment) is likely the norm for people facing both mental or somatic illness. However, our result must be interpreted with caution due to the virtual nature of this study. We suggest that taking attitudes toward ICHA into account is crucial for a better understanding of patients' motivation to use ICHA.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is on the increase globally with a high prevalence in children and adults with chronic illnesses. Many studies have evaluated the epidemiology of medicine use for children in developing countries but none has evaluated the use of CAM for children with chronic illnesses. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the prevalence, pattern of use, parental sources of information, perceived benefits, cost, and adverse effects of CAM in children with epilepsy, sickle cell anaemia and asthma in Lagos, Nigeria.MethodsParents of children with epilepsy (122), asthma (78) or sickle cell anaemia (118) who presented consecutively to the paediatric neurology, respiratory and haematology clinics of the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), Ikeja were interviewed with a structured open- and close-ended questionnaire. The information obtained comprised the demography of both the patients and their parents; past and present treatments received by the patients; the type of CAM, if any, used by the patients; and the sources, cost, benefits and adverse effects of the CAM used.ResultsA total of 303 CAMs were used by the patients, either alone or in combination witother CAM. CAM was reportedly used by 99 (31%) patients (epilepsy--38%, sickle cell anaemia--36% and asthma--25%). The majority (84%) of these patients were currently using CAM. The use of CAM was stopped six months prior to the study by 16 patients (16%). Biological products were the most frequently used CAMs (58%), followed by alternative medical systems (27%) and mind-body interventions (14%). Relations, friends and neighbours had a marked influence on 76% of the parents who used CAM for their children. Eighty-five (86%) parents were willing to discuss the use of CAM with their doctors but were not asked. CAM use was associated with adverse reactions in 7.1% of the patients.ConclusionParental use of CAMs to treat their children with epilepsy, asthma and sickle cell anaemia is common in Nigeria. Efforts should be made by doctors taking care of these patients to identify those CAM therapies that are beneficial, harmless and cheap for possible integration with conventional therapy.

Project description:Purpose:Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely used by patients with cancer. However, little is known about the extent to which these potential remedies are used internationally to treat the most common toxicities of radiation therapy. We report on the results of an international survey that assessed the use of CAMs. Methods and Materials:Surveys were distributed to 1174 practicing radiation oncologists. Questions evaluated the perceptions of CAMs and specific practice patterns for the use of CAM remedies in the treatment of common radiation-induced toxicities (eg, skin, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and mucositis/xerostomia). The responses were compared between the groups using the ?2 test and stratified on the basis of provider location, number of years in practice, and perception of CAMs. Results:A total of 114 radiation oncologists from 29 different countries completed the survey, with a balanced distribution between North American (n = 56) and non-North American (n = 58) providers. Among the responding clinicians, 63% recommended CAMs in their practice. The proportion of clinicians who recommend CAMs for radiation toxicities did not significantly vary when stratified by provider's number of years in practice (P = .23) or location (United States/Canada vs other; P = .74). Overall, providers reported that 29.4% of their patients use CAMs, and 87.7% reported that their practice encouraged or was neutral on CAM use, whereas 12.3% recommended stopping CAMs. The most common sources of patient information on CAMs were the Internet (75.4%), friends (60.5%), and family (58.8%). Clinicians reported the highest use of CAMs for radiation skin toxicity at 66.7%, followed by 48.2% for fatigue, 40.4% for nausea, and 36.8% for mucositis/xerostomia. Conclusions:Nearly two-thirds of the surveyed radiation oncologists recommend CAMs for radiation-related toxicities; however, they estimated that less than one third of patients use CAMs for this purpose. This suggests a need for further investigation and perhaps greater patient education on the roles of CAMs in treating radiation toxicities.

Project description:PurposeWe explored the prevalence and trends of self-reported complementary and alternative medicine use among patients with prostate cancer using CaPSURE™ (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor).Materials and methodsA total of 7,989 CaPSURE participants completed questionnaires between 1996 and 2016 on the use of nearly 70 complementary and alternative medicine types. Participants were defined as users if they indicated that they had ever used complementary and alternative medicines. To evaluate trends among 7,696 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer we considered complementary and alternative medicine use within 24 months of diagnosis and calculated the percent change in complementary and alternative medicine use between groups defined by the year of diagnosis.ResultsOf patients with prostate cancer 56% reported complementary and alternative medicine use on at least 1 questionnaire. Multivitamin and omega-3 fatty acid use was common at 40% and 24% of patients, respectively. Compared to nonusers greater proportions of complementary and alternative medicine users were college educated, had a higher household income and lived in the West and Midwest. Median prostate specific antigen at diagnosis was 5.8 (IQR 4.4-8.4) and 6.2 ng/ml (IQR 4.7-10.1) among users and nonusers, respectively (p <0.01). Between those diagnosed in 1996 to 2000 and 2011 to 2016, complementary and alternative medicine use increased 128% from 24% to 54%. When comparing participants diagnosed in 2006 to 2010 with those diagnosed in 2011 to 2016, a 108% increase was seen in supplemental vitamin D use and a -48% decrease was seen in supplemental vitamin E use.ConclusionsMany patients with prostate cancer reported complementary and alternative medicine use. Multivitamins and omega-3 fatty acids were commonly ingested and vitamin D use increased dramatically from 2006 to 2010 compared to 2011 to 2016. These data can guide clinical discussions and decision making such as nutritionist referral and help prioritize future research.