Breast Cancer Patients' Perspectives on and Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Study by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine patterns and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among breast cancer patients. A review of the existing survey literature on CAM use for breast cancer was conducted with a series of eight focus groups (N = 67) to further examine the perspectives of breast cancer patients on CAM. The rates of CAM use varied from 17 to 75%, with a mean of 45%. Vitamins and minerals and herbs were the most frequently cited categories. Users tended to be younger, more educated, and more likely to have used CAM prior to their diagnosis. Focus group data indicate that breast cancer patients use a wide array of CAM for a variety of reasons, including symptom management, improving quality of life, and enhancing immune function. Although women rely on a variety of resources for information, they frequently experience frustration owing to the absence or conflicting nature of such information. Communication with conventional providers about CAM is frequently experienced as either unsupportive or not helpful by many patients. The results point to the value of developing better evidence-based informational resources related to CAM and cancer and the need for physicians to become better educated about CAM and how to communicate more effectively with their breast cancer patients about it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".