Premium
Use of complementary and alternative medicine by Brazilian oncologists
Author(s) -
SAMANO E.S.T.,
RIBEIRO L.M.,
CAMPOS A.S.,
LEWIN F.,
FILHO E.S.V.,
GOLDENSTEIN P.T.,
COSTA L.J.M.,
DEL GIGLIO A.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
european journal of cancer care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1365-2354
pISSN - 0961-5423
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00524.x
Subject(s) - medicine , alternative medicine , family medicine , population , cancer , traditional medicine , pathology , environmental health
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently employed by patients with cancer. An extensive survey was conducted among Brazilian cancer physicians to understand their attitude towards CAM. A questionnaire was sent to all 655 members of the Brazilian Cancer Society asking what is their opinion regarding CAM and if they would prescribe any CAM modality for their patients. They were also questioned regarding their degree of awareness of CAM self‐administration by their patients. Overall, 119 questionnaires were returned to us (18%). Most oncologists knew at least one type of CAM (96.6%) and 76.7% had previously made use of at least one type of CAM for themselves. We observed that 76 (63.8%) of the oncologists used to ask their patients about CAM utilization and 37.8% described at least one reason to stimulate its use (68.8% as complementary treatment). Only 10% of the oncologists would prescribe at least one type of CAM and this attitude correlated significantly with previous physicians’ use of CAM and with being a clinical oncologist as well as with having questioned patients about CAM use. Most oncologists (80.7%) would not indicate the use of CAM, mainly for lack of scientific proof of its efficacy (56.2%). Physicians knew many kinds of CAM and had frequently used some of them themselves, but only a minority of Brazilian oncologists would indicate them. As CAM use is very prevalent in our population, we believe that most of its utilization depends, probably, on patient's own and independent initiatives. However, these results should be viewed with caution because of the low response rate we observed in this study.