Demographic, medical, and psychosocial correlates to CAM use among survivors of colorectal cancer
- 237 Downloads
Goals of work
Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) use among cancer patients is becoming more prevalent; however, our understanding of factors contributing to patients’ decisions to participate in CAM is limited. This study examined correlates of CAM use among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, an understudied population that experiences many physical and psychological difficulties.
Materials and methods
The sample was 191, predominantly white, CRC survivors (mean age = 59.9 ± 12.6) who were members of a colon disease registry at a NYC metropolitan hospital. Participants completed assessments of sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors [e.g., psychological functioning, cancer specific distress, social support (SS), quality of life (QOL)], and past CAM use (e.g., chiropractic care, acupuncture, relaxation, hypnosis, and homeopathy).
Seventy-five percent of participants reported using at least one type of CAM; most frequently reported was home remedies (37%). Younger (p < 0.01) or female patients (p < 0.01) were more likely to participate in CAM than their older male counterparts. Among psychosocial factors, poorer perceived SS (p = 0.00), more intrusive thoughts (p < 0.05), and poorer overall perceived QOL (p < 0.05) were associated to CAM use. In a linear regression model (including age, gender, SS, intrusive thoughts, and perceived QOL), only age remained a significant predictor of CAM use.
These findings demonstrate that CAM use is prevalent among CRC survivors and should be assessed routinely by providers. CAMs may serve as a relevant adjunct to treatment among CRC patients as well as an indication of need for additional SS, especially among younger patients.
KeywordsColorectal cancer Cancer CAM Psychosocial factors
The writing of this paper was supported by Grant No. NCI-CA81137-05 from the National Cancer Institute.
- 1.American Cancer Society (2005) Cancer facts & figures for African Americans 2005–2006. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
- 3.Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv Data 27(343):1–19Google Scholar
- 6.Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, Hoberman HM (1985) Measuring the functional components of social support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR (eds) Social support: theory, research, and applications. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 73–94Google Scholar
- 9.Horowitz MJ (1982). Stress response syndromes and their treatment. In: Golderberger L, Breznitz S (eds) Handbook of stress: theoretical and clinical aspects. Free Press, New York, pp 711–732Google Scholar
- 11.Molassiotis A, Fernandez-Ortega P, Pud D, Ozden G, Platin N, Hummerston S, Scott JA, Panteli V, Gudmundsdottir G, Selvekerova S (2005) Complementary and alternative medicine use in colorectal cancer patients in seven European countries. Complement Ther Med 13(4):251–257 (December)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sollner W, Maislinger S, DeVries A, Steixner E, Rumpold G, Lukas P (2000) Use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients is not associated with perceived distress or poor compliance with standard treatment but with active coping behavior: a survey. Cancer 4(873):880Google Scholar
- 17.Stewart A, Sherbourne D, Hayes R et al (1998) Psychological distress/well-being and cognitive functioning measures. In: Stewart A, Ware A (eds) Measuring functioning and well-being. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar