z-logo
Premium
Complementary/alternative medicine use in a pediatric oncology unit in Turkey
Author(s) -
Karadeniz Ceyda,
Pınarlı F. Güçlü,
Oğuz Aynur,
Gürsel Türkiz,
Canter Berna
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
pediatric blood and cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.116
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1545-5017
pISSN - 1545-5009
DOI - 10.1002/pbc.21012
Subject(s) - medicine , alternative medicine , family medicine , disease , pediatric oncology , conventional medicine , cancer , traditional medicine , pathology
Background Important in the cancer therapy is the increasingly use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). The current study aims to establish the extent of use, the types of therapies employed, factors influencing, the reasons for choosing and the cost of CAM used in pediatric cancer patients in our clinic in Ankara, Turkey. Procedure A detailed questionnaire regarding demographic data and information about the use of CAM was completed by 95 patients who have attended the clinic between 1999 and 2000. Results Forty‐nine patients (51.6%) had used one or more than one type of CAM. The most frequent (71.4%) was herbal medicine and biologic intake (stinging nettle, plant essence, honey of Anzer). The second one was religious therapy (40.8%). No correlation could be found between the use of CAM and parents education status, the level of income, number of siblings, the prognosis of the disease, the rate of satisfaction with the level of information given by the doctor at the time of diagnosis or the belief in the information given by the doctor about the prognosis ( P  > 0.05). All patients used CAM in addition to conventional therapy. Conclusions More than half of the patients used CAM, with stinging nettle being the most common agent. Our patients place a high level of trust in their physicians and the conventional therapies offered by them; however, they also believe that the complementary therapies are harmless and, therefore, worth trying. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48:540–543. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here