This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1534735408327996v1 8/1/56    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Eustachi, A. Articles by Weidenhammer, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Eustachi, A. Articles by Weidenhammer, W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Patients of an Interdisciplinary Cancer Treatment Center: Use of, Knowledge About, and Demand for CAM Treatment Options

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine , Technical University, Munich, Germany

Helenka Pajtler, MD

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine , Technical University, Munich, Germany

Klaus Linde, MD

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine , Technical University, Munich, Germany

Dieter Melchart, MD

Division of Complementary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland

Wolfgang Weidenhammer, PhD

Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine , Technical University, Munich, Germany, wolfgang.weidenhammer{at}lrz.tum.de

Objective: to assess the use of, knowledge about, and the demand for information concerning complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed on consecutive patients visiting the outpatient tumor treatment center of a university hospital at Munich, Germany. The authors used a questionnaire with questions on sociodemographics, tumor diagnosis and treatment, current symptoms, previous use of CAM, and expectations and attitudes with respect to CAM. Results: 52% used at least 1 CAM method, 24% did not use CAM but asked for consultation, and 24% neither used CAM nor were interested; 59% rated CAM treatment as personally important; 76% and 34% described themselves as well informed about conventional treatment and CAM, respectively. Current CAM use was associated with higher degrees of information and subjective importance, and not suffering from lymphatic cancer and metastases. Conclusions: CAM is a relevant topic for the care of cancer patients.

Key Words: CAM use • knowledge • demand for information • advisory service • complaints

This version was published on March 1, 2009

Integrative Cancer Therapies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 56-62 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1534735408327996


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?