Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Proportion of gynecologic cancer patients using complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for treatment of cancer and for supportive care of cancer patients must be clearly separated. There is encouraging evidence for CAM in the latter area, such as acupuncture and progressive muscle relaxation for chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and aromatherapy for decreasing anxiety and increasing quality of life. However, there are limited data about CAM used by gynecologic cancer patients, especially in Thai women. Therefore, the authors aimed to investigate the proportion and types of CAM using in our gynecologic cancer patients.

METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted between October to December, 2008. Totals of 50 admitted and 50 walk-in gynecologic cancer patients 1 month after diagnosis, aged more than 20 years and able to give informed consent, were selected for one-by-one interview by random walking survey.

RESULTS: Among the 100 interviewed patients, aged 21-69 (mean=50.12), there were 46 cases of cervical cancers, 35 of ovarian cancers, 18 of endometrial cancers (two of these also had ovarian cancers), 2 of malignant gestational trophoblastic diseases, 1 of vulvar cancer, and 1 liver cancer (in a patient with ovarian cancer). Some 67% (95% CI, 57.8-76.2%) of them used CAM. As diet modifications, 11 used Chinese vegetarian, 8 common vegetarian, 5 Cheewajit, and 1 macrobiotics. Five of them used dietary supplements while colonic detoxification was emplyed in three. As herbal medicines, 27 used Thai herbs, 4 Chinese herbs, and 1 a herbal sauna. Twelve were receiving Thai massage. As exercises, 23 used aerobics and 5 stretching. Interestingly, 62 of them used Buddhist praying while only 3 employed native magic.

CONCLUSIONS: The three most common forms of CAM used by our gynecologic cancer patients were Buddhist praying (62/67, 92.5%), followed by herbal medicines (27/67, 40.3%) and exercises (25/67, 37.3%).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app