Complementary-alternative medicine among cancer patients in the western region of Turkey

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorTarhan, O.
dc.contributor.authorAlacacioglu, A.
dc.contributor.authorSomali, I.
dc.contributor.authorSipahi, H.
dc.contributor.authorZencir, M.
dc.contributor.authorOztop, I.
dc.contributor.authorDirioz, M.
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, U.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T20:52:49Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T20:52:49Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To investigate the complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) applications and factors affecting its use among cancer patients in the western region of Turkey. Patients and methods: Face-to face interview technique was used. Patients were asked to answer a questionnaire about their socio-demographic features, their level of knowledge about the disease and CAM application features. Results: 220 adult cancer patients (79 male) were evaluated. Ninety-three (42.3%) were using at least one CAM method, the most common being herbal products which were preferred by 81 (36.3%) patients. Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) was the most commonly used herbal product. Next was nutritional support, preferred by 45 (20.3%) patients. Eighty-nine (44.5%) of 200 patients who knew the diagnosis and 4 of 20 (20%) who did not were using CAM. In the patient group with awareness of the diagnosis, CAM application was significantly higher (p=0.034). CAM applications were detected in 34 of 70 (48.5%) patients with recurrent disease while 54 of 150 (36%) patients without recurrent disease were using CAM. The CAM applications were significantly higher in the group with recurrent disease (p=0.006). Fifty-three of 103 (51.4%) patients who had advanced disease were using CAM, while only 40 of 117 (34.1%) patients with local or locally advanced disease were using it. CAM applications were significantly higher in the group with advanced disease (p=0.030). Besides, knowing the diagnosis and disease recurrence were also independent risk factors for CAM usage [odd ratio(OR): 3.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-9.8 and OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.2-4.0 respectively]. As a result, nearly half of the patients (42.3%) in this region were using at least one of the CAM methods. Conclusion: The severity of the disease (recurrence and dissemination) and patients' awareness of the diagnosis were the most important factors affecting the CAM applications.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage269en_US
dc.identifier.issn1107-0625
dc.identifier.issn2241-6293
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid19650177en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage265en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/43270
dc.identifier.volume14en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000267610200015en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherImprimatur Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Buonen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectcanceren_US
dc.subjectcomplementary-alternativeen_US
dc.subjectcomplementary treatmenten_US
dc.subjectmedicineen_US
dc.titleComplementary-alternative medicine among cancer patients in the western region of Turkeyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu