ORIGINAL PAPER
The prevalence of complementary and alternative methods
and their impact on conventional cancer treatment among
oncological patients in Poland – an institutional study
1
Department of Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
Head of the Department: Prof. Rafał Matkowski MD, PhD
2
Department of Oncology, Division of Surgical Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
3
1st Department of Surgical Oncology, Wroclaw Regional Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Wroclaw, Poland
4
Department of Brachytherapy, Wroclaw Regional Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Wroclaw, Poland
Submission date: 2021-03-06
Final revision date: 2021-04-19
Acceptance date: 2021-05-16
Publication date: 2021-06-30
Medical Studies 2021;37(2):91-99
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Nowadays, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is gaining more adherents in Poland. Awareness of CAM methods among medical professionals is unsatisfactory. The gap that has been created in the Polish health care system opens the field for abuse. Poor knowledge about the popularity of CAM therapies among oncological patients in Poland led us to the evaluation of their prevalence and features. Aim of the research: To assess the prevalence of CAM procedures and their impact on conventional cancer treatment in Poland.
Material and methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Lower Silesian Oncology Centre, Poland. The final research group came to 355 respondents (209 women, 146 men, response rate 58%). Inclusion criteria comprised the following: diagnosed cancer, staged from early to advanced, and ongoing conventional treatment. Exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete diagnostic path for cancer, age below 18 years, and complete remission of the disease.
Results:
CAM methods were used by 156 (43.9%) patients. The most popular were herbal drugs (50.6%), linseed (49.4%), and apricot seeds (32.7%). Approximately 40% of patients informed their doctor about CAM usage. More than 7% had resigned from standard treatment in the past. Almost 2% of respondents considered suspending therapy in the future. Factors associated with CAM use were as follows: female gender (51.2% vs. 33.56%; p < 0.05), secondary and higher education (47.1% secondary, 51.8% higher vs. 19.2% primary, 38.46% vocational; p < 0.05), education associated with health care (68.4% vs. 41.0%; p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
CAM techniques are popular among oncological patients in Poland and are often used on their own. No single factor affecting CAM use was established. Besides oncological treatment, patients should be informed about the effectiveness and the side-effects of CAM and the dangers associated with standard treatment refusal.
Nowadays, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is gaining more adherents in Poland. Awareness of CAM methods among medical professionals is unsatisfactory. The gap that has been created in the Polish health care system opens the field for abuse. Poor knowledge about the popularity of CAM therapies among oncological patients in Poland led us to the evaluation of their prevalence and features. Aim of the research: To assess the prevalence of CAM procedures and their impact on conventional cancer treatment in Poland.
Material and methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Lower Silesian Oncology Centre, Poland. The final research group came to 355 respondents (209 women, 146 men, response rate 58%). Inclusion criteria comprised the following: diagnosed cancer, staged from early to advanced, and ongoing conventional treatment. Exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete diagnostic path for cancer, age below 18 years, and complete remission of the disease.
Results:
CAM methods were used by 156 (43.9%) patients. The most popular were herbal drugs (50.6%), linseed (49.4%), and apricot seeds (32.7%). Approximately 40% of patients informed their doctor about CAM usage. More than 7% had resigned from standard treatment in the past. Almost 2% of respondents considered suspending therapy in the future. Factors associated with CAM use were as follows: female gender (51.2% vs. 33.56%; p < 0.05), secondary and higher education (47.1% secondary, 51.8% higher vs. 19.2% primary, 38.46% vocational; p < 0.05), education associated with health care (68.4% vs. 41.0%; p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
CAM techniques are popular among oncological patients in Poland and are often used on their own. No single factor affecting CAM use was established. Besides oncological treatment, patients should be informed about the effectiveness and the side-effects of CAM and the dangers associated with standard treatment refusal.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U, Czaderny K, Olasek P, Ciuba A. Cancer in Poland in 2017. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów, Narodowy Instytut Onkologii im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy. Available at http://onkologia.org.pl/wp-con.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
2.
Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J. Zachorowania i zgony na nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów, Narodowy Instytut Onkologii im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy. Available at http://onkologia.org.pl/raport.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
3.
Polish Cancer Society (PTO). CANCER CONTROL STRATEGY FOR POLAND 2015-2024. 21 April 2017. Available at https://ligawalkizrakiem.pl/im.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
4.
Access to innovative cancer drugs in Poland in comparison with selected European Union countries and Switzerland, Report ordered by Young People Oncology Foundation Alivia and prepared by EY Poland, April 2015. Available at https://www.alivia.org.pl/rapo.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
5.
Clarke TC, Black LI, Stussman BJ, Barnes PM, Nahin RL. Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002-2012. Natl Health Stat Report 2015; 79: 1-16.
6.
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998; 280: 1569-1575.
7.
Woźniak-Holecka J, Zborowska K, Holecki T. Alternative medicine as a complementary form of treatment in the oncological patients’ opinion. Psychoonkologia 2010; 1: 21-28.
8.
Woźniak P, Balińska M, Kmieciak Ł. Medycyna komplementarna i alternatywna dziś. Akupunkt Pol 2004; 30: 1150-1169.
9.
Wiesener S, Falkenberg T, Hegyi G, Hök J, Roberti di Sarsina P, Fønnebø V. Legal status and regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe. Forsch Komplementmed 2012; 19 Suppl 2: 29-36.
10.
Piątkowski W. Beyond Medicine. Non-Medical Methods of Treatment in Poland. Peter Lang Frankfurt 2012; 52-63.
11.
Wroclaw Medical University, English Division of Medicine Department Curriculum Available at https://www.ed.umed.wroc.pl/si.... Accessed 06 June 2019.
12.
Patel SJ, Kemper KJ, Joseph P Kitzmiller JP. Physician perspectives on education, training, and implementation of complementary and alternative medicine. Adv Med Educ Pract 2017; 8: 499-503.
13.
Olchowska-Kotala A, Baranski J. Polish physicians’ attitudes to complementary and alternative medicine. Complement Ther Med 2016; 27: 51-57.
14.
Nobili S, Lippi D, Witort E, Donnini M, Bausi L, Mini E, Capaccioli S. Natural compounds for cancer treatment and prevention. Pharmacol Res 2009; 59: 365-378.
15.
Albabtain H, Alwhaibi M, Alburaikan K, Asiri Y. Quality of life and complementary and alternative medicine use among women with breast cancer. Saudi Pharm J 2018; 26: 416-421.
16.
Okoronkwo I, Onyia-pat JI, Okpala P, Agbo MA, Ndu A. Patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use, perceived benefits, and adverse effects among adult users in Enugu Urban, Southeast Nigeria. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2014; 2014: 239372.
17.
Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Complementary medicine, refusal of conventional cancer therapy, and survival among patients with curable cancers. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 1375-1381.
18.
Frass M, Strassl RP, Friehs H, Müllner M, Kundi M, Kaye AD. Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J 2012; 12: 45-56.
19.
Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. Prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 246-252.
20.
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998; 280: 1569-1575.
21.
WHO. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014-2023. World Health Organization, Geneva 2013.
22.
WHO. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2002-2005. World Health Organization, Geneva 2002.
23.
Bloom BS, Retbi A, Dahan S, Jonsson E. Evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 13-21.
24.
Richardson MA, Sanders T, Palmer JL, Greisinger A, Singletary SE. Complementary/alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer center and the implications for oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2505-2514.
25.
Greenlee H, Balneaves LG, Carlson LE, Cohen M, Deng G, Hershman D, Mumber M, Perlmutter J, Seely D, Sen A, Zick SM, Tripathy D, Society for Integrative Oncology. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of integrative therapies as supportive care in patients treated for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2014; 2014: 346-358.
26.
McFarland B, Bigelow D, Zani B, Newsom J, Kaplan M. Complementary and alternative medicine use in Canada and the United States. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 1616-1618.
27.
Ozcakir A, Sadikoglu G, Bayram N, Mazicioglu MM, Bilgel N, Beyhan I. Turkish general practitioners and complementary/alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2007; 13: 1007-1010.
28.
Redakcja Homeopatii polskiej. Homeopatia na świecie i w Polsce. Homeopatia Polska. Strona-Forum. Available at https://homeopatiapolska.com/b.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
29.
Redakcja GL. Zlikwidowali studia podyplomowe z homeopatii. Gazeta Lekarska 2016. Available at http://gazetalekarska.pl/?p=28.... Accessed 01 November 2020.
30.
Czerwiński K, Chmielewska M. Alternative therapies in cancer treatment – hope or threat? (qualitative research). Oncol Clin Pract 2021; DOI: 10.5603/OCP.2021.0006.
31.
Richardson MA, Mâsse LC, Nanny K, Sanders C. Discrepant views of oncologists and cancer patients on complementary/alternative medicine. Support Care Cancer 2004; 12: 797-804.
32.
Akyuz MD, Oran NT, Yucel U, Eksioglu A, Kocak YC. The relationship between hopelessness level and complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2019; 15: 1155-1161.
33.
Frenkel M, Cohen L. Effective communication about the use of complementary and integrative medicine in cancer care. J Altern Complement Med 2014; 20: 12-18.
34.
Lognos B, Carbonnel F, Boulze Launay I, Bringay S, Guerdoux-Ninot E, Mollevi C, Senesse P, Ninot G. Complementary and alternative medicine in patients with breast cancer: exploratory study of social network forum data. JMIR Cancer 2019; 5: e12536.
| eISSN: | 2300-6722 |
| ISSN: | 1899-1874 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
