PubMed · 8710618
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Buckle. Words fail us.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8710618/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
GOALS OF WORK: It is well documented that an increasing proportion of cancer patients today use complementary and alternative medicine, mostly alongside conventional therapies. This study investigates the use of complementary and alternative medicine among oncology health workers and the reported effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In June 2002, we conducted a national multicentre survey including 828 Norwegian oncologists, nurses, clerks and therapeutic radiographers. The response rate was 61.5%. MAIN RESULTS: We found that females were more often users of both complementary and alternative methods than males (39% versus 15% and 47% versus 17%) and that few oncologists had tried such treatments compared to nurses, therapeutic radiographers and clerks (20/12% versus 50/40%, 41/33%,and 31/50%). Interestingly, the majority of those who had tried unconventional methods reported some or very good effects. Acupuncture, homeopathy, aromatherapy and massage were the most popular therapies. Sub-group analyses including only oncologists showed that female physicians were more often users of both complementary and alternative methods compared to males (33% versus 12%, 25% versus 3%). Moreover, participants below the age of 35 years and Christians more often reported use. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates that significant proportion of oncology health workers in Norway have used non-proven therapies and that most have had a positive experience. Differences in use is highly dependent on gender, profession, age and religion.
Many cancer patients use complementary alternative medicines (CAMs) but may not be aware of the potential risks. There are no studies quantifying such risks, but there is some evidence of patient risk from case reports in the literature. A cross-sectional survey of patients attending the outpatient department at a specialist cancer centre was carried out to establish a pattern of herbal remedy or supplement use and to identify potential adverse side effects or drug interactions with conventional medicines. If potential risks were identified, a health warning was issued by a pharmacist. A total of 318 patients participated in the study. Of these, 164 (51.6%) took CAMs, and 133 different combinations were recorded. Of these, 10.4% only took herbal remedies, 42.1% only supplements and 47.6% a combination of both. In all, 18 (11.0%) reported supplements in higher than recommended doses. Health warnings were issued to 20 (12.2%) patients. Most warnings concerned echinacea in patients with lymphoma. Further warnings were issued for cod liver/fish oil, evening primrose oil, gingko, garlic, ginseng, kava kava and beta-carotene. In conclusion, medical practitioners need to be able to identify the potential risks of CAMs. Equally, patients should be encouraged to disclose their use. Also, more research is needed to quantify the actual health risks.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.