↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, patterns, and perceived value of complementary and alternative medicine among cancer patients: a cross-sectional, descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence, patterns, and perceived value of complementary and alternative medicine among cancer patients: a cross-sectional, descriptive study
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1853-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandreker Bahall

Abstract

Sophisticated conventional medicine (CM) has brought significant advances to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. However, many cancer patients still turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment. This study explored the prevalence, patterns, and perceived value of CAM among cancer patients. This quantitative descriptive study was conducted between March 1, 2015, and July 31, 2015, among a cross-sectional, convenience sample of patients from the Oncology Department of San Fernando General Hospital in Trinidad and Tobago. Face-to-face interviews were conducted at the oncology clinic and treatment suite after obtaining informed consent. Data analysis included descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and binary logistic regression analysis. The prevalence of CAM use among a sample of 350 cancer patients was 39.1% (39.6% for breast cancer, 44.4% for prostate cancer, 37% for ovarian cancer, and 38.7% for colon cancer patients). Herbs were the most common type of CAM used (93.4%), followed by spiritual therapy (73.7%). CAM use was more prevalent among females (68.6%), Indo-Trinidadians (63.5%), and patients aged 41-50 years (37.2%). The majority (70%-80%) rated CAM efficacy on perceived value. CAM was used mainly because of a desire to try anything that might help (67.6%), followed by it being congruent with the patients' beliefs (59.1%). Patients knew about CAM mainly through friends (69.3%) and family (69.3%). Most patients were generally satisfied (93.6%) and considered CAM helpful (89.8%), but the majority never informed their health care provider of CAM use (78.8%). Patients reported the simultaneous use of more than one type of CAM, without considering or knowing of possible side-effects. The perceived value of CAM included empowerment, control, cure, and improved quality of life. CAM use was associated with age, but no predictors of CAM use could be identified. Medicinal herbs and spiritual therapy are commonly used among cancer patients because of perceived benefits and satisfaction. CAM use is more prevalent among females, Indo-Trinidadians, and patients aged 41-50 years old. There are no useful predictors of CAM use. More than one type of CAM is commonly used simultaneously without disclosure to health care providers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 17%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 50 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 53 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2018.
All research outputs
#14,943,828
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,851
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,362
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#63
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.