Use of complementary medicine (CAM) among women receiving chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: A comparison of attitudes between two patient populations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e20545 Background: CAM use in cancer patients (pts) is common. The aim of this study was to compare patterns of CAM use and attitudes to CAM among ovarian cancer (EOC) pts in Canada and Scotland. Methods: Patients receiving chemotherapy for EOC in Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH), Toronto and the Edinburgh Cancer Centre (ECC), Scotland, completed a survey on CAM taken within the previous month as well as a questionnaire assessing patient attitudes and perceptions of CAM. A comparison between the 2 patient populations and between CAM users and non-users was made. Results: 194 pts (100 ECC: 94 PMH) were enrolled on study. The use of CAM in PMH was significantly higher than in ECC (52% vs. 36%, p=0.02). Whilst both populations thought it important for their oncologist to be aware of CAM usage (86% PMH: 93% ECC), pts from PMH were less likely to inform their compared to pts from ECC (50% vs 81%, p=0.02). Patterns of CAM use differed between the 2 populations: Multivitamins were the most common CAM in both populations (31% PMH:13% ECC). They were not considered CAM for the purpose of analysis. Most commonly used CAM in PMH were Soy products (12%), vitamin C (10%) and Green Tea (9%); in ECC pts used Omega 3 and fish oil (9%), Evening Primrose (7%) and vitamin C (6%). Although the majority of CAM users in both populations found CAM to be helpful (57% PMH: 61% ECC) only a minority thought they would cure their cancer (18% PMH: 6% ECC), prevent its spread (31% PMH: 14% ECC) or prevent a recurrence (20% PMH: 11% ECC). Users more often felt CAM relieved symptoms (45% PMH: 42% ECC), boosted the immune system (55% PMH: 56% ECC) or improved their quality of life (43% PMH: 53% ECC). ECC CAM users were more likely than PMH users to concede that CAMs have side effects (39% vs 29%) or could impact the efficacy of conventional treatment (17% vs 6%). CAM users were more likely than non-users to agree with positive statements and to disagree with negative statements about CAM. Conclusions: CAM use is common among pts receiving chemotherapy for EOC. CAM use was more prevalent among North American pts than Scottish pts. Attitudes and patterns of CAM usage differ and are culturally sensitive. Oncologists need to be aware of this when initiating discussion about CAM with their patients during cancer treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».