Psycho-Oncologie

, 5:157 | Cite as

Étude psychologique du recours aux médecines parallèles en cancérologie

Article Original / Original Article

Résumé

Des entretiens semi-dirigés portant sur 46 patients cancéreux à des stades divers de leur maladie ont permis de préciser les raisons du recours à des médecines parallèles, la nature des produits utilisés, les relations avec la médecine dite classique, les prescripteurs et le rôle éventuel de la religion et d’Internet. Les deux tiers des malades souhaitent être actifs contre la maladie, ils utilisent ces traitements pour lutter contre les symptômes et améliorer leur état général, mais 20 % des malades pensent que ces médecines vont les aider à guérir le cancer. Les malades ne font pas la différence entre une médecine parallèle complémentaire ou alternative. Le prescripteur de médecine parallèle, souvent un médecin homéopathe, séduit par sa personnalité et sa considération pour le malade. La religion et Internet ont un rôle limité.

Mots clés

Cancer Psychologie Médecine complémentaire Médecine alternative 

Psychological study of cancerous patients using complementary and alternative therapies

Abstract

Semi-structured interviews conducted among 46 cancerous patients provide accounts of the reasons for pursuing complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the relationships with oncologists, the influence of the prescribers of CAM, and the role of religion and Internet. Two-thirds of patients used CAM to have an active part in their fight against cancer. They want to reduce the symptoms and enhance their general health condition, and 20% consider these CAMs as potential cures for cancer. Patients do not distinguish between complementary and alternative methods. Most prescribers of CAMs are MD homeopathy specialists and their good bedside manner draws patients to take CAMs. Religion and Internet are of limited influence.

Keywords

Neoplasms Psychology Complementary medicine Alternative therapies 

Références

  1. 1.
    Auge M, Herzlich C (1984) Le sens du mal anthropologie, histoire, sociologie de la médecine. Ed des archives contemporaines, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boon H, Brown JB, Gavin A, Westlake K (2003) Men with prostate cancer: making decisions about complementary/alternative medicine. Medical Decison Making 23:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boon H, Westlake K, Deber R, Moineddin R (2005) Problemsolving and decision-making preferences: no difference between complementary and alternative medicine users and non-users. Complement Ther Med 13:213–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burstein HJ, Gelber S, Guadagnoli E, Weeks JC (1999) Use of alternative medicine by women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340(22):1733–1739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassileth BR (1988) Unorthodox cancer medicine. CA. CA Cancer J Clin 38:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cassileth BR, Gubili J, Simon Yeung K (2009) Integrative medicine: complementary therapies and supplements. Nat Rev Urol (4):228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cathébras P (1996) Le recours aux médecines parallèles observées depuis l’hôpital: banalisation et pragmatisme. In: Benoist J (ed) Soigner au pluriel. Essais sur le pluralisme médical. Ed Karthala, Paris, 315–330Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chatwin J, Tovey P (2004) Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), cancer and group-based action: a critical review of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care 13(3):210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst E (2006) Information on CAM for cancer on the internet. Controversies about CAM in oncology, EORTC workshop, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ernst E, Cassileth BR (1998) The prevalence of complementary alternative medicine in cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 83(4):777–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ernst E, Schmidt K (2002) Alternative cancer via the Internet? Br J Cancer 87:479–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furnham VC (1996) Why do patients turn to complementary medicine. An Empirical study. Br J Clin Psychol 35(Pt 1):37–48Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hana G, Bar-Sela G, Zhana D, et al (2005) The use of complementary and alternative therapies by cancer patients in northern Israël. Isr Med Assoc J 7(4):243–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson JW, Donatelle RJ (2003) The relationship between cancer locus of control and complementary and alternative medicine use by women diagnosed with breast cancer. Psychooncology 12(1):59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herzlich C, Pierret J (1984) Malades d’hier, malades d’aujourd’-hui. Ed Payot, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoerni B (1991) Les traitements inéprouvés dans ? Le pavillon des cancéreux ? d’A. Soljénitsyne. Bull Cancer 78:847–851Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoerni B (1994) L’archipel du cancer. Ed Le cherche midi, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Breton D (2001) Anthropologie du corps et modernité. Essai 2001. Ed Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lejeune S, Lejeune F (1998) Médecines alternatives: point de vue d’un sociologue et d’un cancérologue. Revue médicale de la Suisse Romande 48(6):323–326Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Low J (2001) Alternative, complementary or concurrent health care? A critical analysis of the use of the concept of complementary therapy. Complement Ther Med 9:105–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mathews SC, Camacho A, Mills PJ, Dimsdale JE (2003) The internet for medical information about cancer: help or hindrance? Psychosomatics 44:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Molassiotis A, Fernandez-Ortega P, Pud D, et al (2005) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients. A European survey. Ann Oncol 16(4):655–663Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. National Institute of health. [en ligne]. Disponible sur: http:// nccam.nih.gov/
  24. 24.
    Navo MA, Phan J, Vaughan C, et al (2004) An assessment of the utilization of complementary and alternative medication in women with gynaecologic or breast malignancies. J Clin Oncol 22(4):671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paltiel O, Avitzour M, Peretz T, et al (2001) Determinants of the use of complementary therapies by patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(9):2439–2448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paterson C (2004) Take small steps to go a long way consumer involvement in research into complementary and alternative therapies. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery 10:150–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richardson MA, Sanders T, Palmer JL, et al (2000) Complementary/Alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer center and the implications for oncology. J Clin Oncol 18(13):2505–2514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schraub S (2000) Unproven methods in cancer: a world-wide problem. Support Care Cancer 8(1):10–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schraub S, Helary JP (1991) Traitements non prouvés en cancérologie. Bull Cancer 78:915–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simon L, Prebay D, Beretz A, et al (2007) Médecines complémentaires et alternatives suivies par des patients cancéreux en France. Bull Cancer 94:483–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spiegel D, Stroud P, Fyfe A (1998) Complementary medicine. West J Med 168:241–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tatsumura Y, Maskarinec G, Shumay DM, Kakai H (2003) Religious and spiritual resources, CAM, and conventional treatment in the lives of cancer patients. Altern Ther Health Med 9(3):64–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vincent C, Furnham A (1996) Why do patients turn to complementary medicine. Br J Clin Psycho 35:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    World Health Organization (2004) Guidelines on developing consumer information on proper use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine. World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Service de cancérologie Marie-Curiehôpital de l’Amitié-KhmersoviétiquePhnom PenhCambodge
  3. 3.Département de médecine oncologiqueCentre de lutte contre le cancer Paul-StraussStrasbourg cedexFrance
  4. 4.Unité de psycho-oncologieCentre de lutte contre le cancer Paul-StraussStrasbourg cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations