This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1534735408319059v1 7/2/70    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Lee, R. T. Articles by Daugherty, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, R. T. Articles by Daugherty, C. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Cancer Cancer Alternative Therapies Complementary and Alternative Medicine Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An International Pilot Study of Oncology Physicians? Opinions and Practices on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rlee{at}medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.

	Abstract

Background. In China and Taiwan, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies such as traditional Chinese medicine have been an option to cancer patients for centuries, whereas in the United States, CAM has been growing in popularity only in the past few decades. Prior research has indicated that the prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients may exceed 80%. Because of a long cultural history of CAM, we hypothesized that oncologists in China and Taiwan (C/T) would communicate and combine CAM with conventional treatments more often than US oncologists. Methods. In 2004-2005, a convenience sample of oncologists from the United States, mainland China, and Taiwan were surveyed regarding their opinions and selfreported practice patterns regarding CAM. Results. A total 95 oncologists returned surveys, providing a 38% response rate. Four out of 5 respondents (78%) felt their medical training was inadequate to use CAM. However, 70% reported they would allow CAM use during active cancer treatment, even in the setting of curable disease. Responding C/T oncologists tended to ask patients more frequently (they ask > 25% of patients) about CAM use and recommended CAM more commonly (recommend to > 10%) to patients than surveyed US oncologists, 55% versus 37% (P = .09) and 81% versus 53% (P < .05). Respondents from the United States felt no more prepared for CAM use than C/T respondents, but 70% reported willingness to combine CAM with conventional treatments for curable disease as compared with only 48% (P < .05) of C/T oncologists. Conclusions. As expected, responding C/T oncologists communicate more often about CAM with patients by asking and recommending CAM. However, contrary to our original hypothesis, C/T oncologists reported a much lower rate of combining CAM with conventional treatment among curable patients than responding US oncologists. Further research is needed to explore, in depth, the reasons for differences in CAM practice patterns among oncologists.

First published on May 27, 2008, doi:10.1177/1534735408319059

Integrative Cancer Therapies 2008;7:70.

A more recent version of this article appeared on June 1, 2008


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