OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess CAM use and examine the symptom burden of CAM and non-CAM users among patients with breast cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy.
METHODS: A CAM use questionnaire and the Side-Effect Burden Scale were administered to 546 patients. Complementary and alternative medicine use was categorized as mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs), or traditional medicine (TM).
RESULTS: We identified 386 CAM users (70.7%) in this study. The CAM users reported a higher marginal mean total symptom burden score (40.39 ± 2.6) than non-CAM users (36.93 ± 3.21), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). Triple-modality (MBP-NP-TM) CAM users had a significantly higher marginal mean total symptom burden score (47.44 ± 4.12) than single-modality (MBP) users (34.09 ± 4.43). The risk of having a high total symptom burden score was 12.9-fold higher among the MBP-NP-TM users than among the MBP users.
CONCLUSIONS: Complementary and alternative medicine use is common among Malaysian patients who are undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. However, CAM and non-CAM users reported similar symptom burdens, although single-modality use of MBP is likely associated with a lower symptom burden.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses should keep abreast of current developments and trends in CAM use. Understanding CAM use and the related symptom burden will allow nurses to initiate open discussion and guide their patients in seeking additional information or referrals for a particular therapy.
Method: Potential studies were identified through a systematic search of Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The keywords used to identify relevant articles were "adherence," "AED," "epilepsy," "non-adherence," and "complementary and alternative medicine." An article was included in the review if the study met the following criteria: 1) conducted in epilepsy patients, 2) conducted in patients aged 18 years and above, 3) conducted in patients prescribed AEDs, and 4) patients' adherence to AEDs.
Results: A total of 3,330 studies were identified and 30 were included in the final analysis. The review found that the AED non-adherence rate reported in the studies was between 25% and 66%. The percentage of CAM use was found to be between 7.5% and 73.3%. The most common reason for inadequate AED therapy and higher dependence on CAM was the patients' belief that epilepsy had a spiritual or psychological cause, rather than primarily being a disease of the brain. Other factors for AED non-adherence were forgetfulness, specific beliefs about medications, depression, uncontrolled recent seizures, and frequent medication dosage.
Conclusion: The review found a high prevalence of CAM use and non-adherence to AEDs among epilepsy patients. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the association between CAM usage and AED adherence. Future studies may wish to explore the influence of CAM use on AED medication adherence.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at two outpatient chemotherapy centers. A total of 546 patients completed the questionnaires on CAM use. QOL was evaluated based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality of life (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific quality of life (QLQ-BR23) questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 70.7% of patients were identified as CAM users. There was no significant difference in global health status scores and in all five subscales of the QLQ C30 functional scales between CAM users and non-CAM users. On the QLQ-C30 symptom scales, CAM users (44.96±3.89) had significantly (p = 0.01) higher mean scores for financial difficulties than non-CAM users (36.29±4.81). On the QLQ-BR23 functional scales, CAM users reported significantly higher mean scores for sexual enjoyment (6.01±12.84 vs. 4.64±12.76, p = 0.04) than non-CAM users. On the QLQ-BR23 symptom scales, CAM users reported higher systemic therapy side effects (41.34±2.01 vs. 37.22±2.48, p = 0.04) and breast symptoms (15.76±2.13 vs. 11.08±2.62, p = 0.02) than non-CAM users. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the use of CAM modality was not significantly associated with higher global health status scores (p = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: While the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between users and non-users of CAM in terms of QOL, CAM may be used by health professionals as a surrogate to monitor patients with higher systemic therapy side effects and breast symptoms. Furthermore, given that CAM users reported higher financial burdens (which may have contributed to increased distress), patients should be encouraged to discuss the potential benefits and/or disadvantages of using CAM with their healthcare providers.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey carried out in two hospitals in Malaysia. Patients with underlying hematological cancers were asked to complete the questionnaires on CAM and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
RESULTS: A total of 245 patients participated. The prevalence of CAM use was 70.2 %. The most common types of CAM used are biological-based therapies (90.2 %) and mind-body interventions (42 %). Vitamin and diet supplements (68.6 %) and folk/herb remedies (58 %) are the most common biological-based therapies used. There is no significant association of CAM use with age, gender, education level, and household income. Female patients are more likely to use more than one CAM therapies. The most common reason reported for CAM use was to boost immunity (57 %) and cure (24 %). Majority of patients (65 %) felt CAM was effective, and 60 % did not inform their physicians regarding CAM usage.
CONCLUSION: In view of the high prevalence of CAM use in patients with hematological cancers, it is important that the physicians play an active role in seeking information from patients and to monitor possible drug-vitamin-herbal interactions.