Cited by 75Complementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesCancer survivorship and careMedical Research and Treatments

Online survey of cancer patients on complementary and alternative medicine

Huebner, Jutta, Prott, Franz J., Micke, Oliver, Muecke, Ralf, Senf, Bianca, Dennert, Gabriele, Muenstedt, Karsten, on behalf of PRIO (Working Group Prevention and Integrative Oncology - German Cancer Society)·2014·Oncology Research and Treatment

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is often used by cancer patients, yet, communication with the oncologist is poor. The objective of our study was to gather information on patients' usage of CAM, source of information, and aims, in order to derive strategies to improve the communication between physicians and patients on this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted by linking a standardized questionnaire to the largest internet portal for cancer patients in Germany. The questionnaire addresses CAM usage, disclosure to physicians, source of information, objectives for using CAM, and perceived reasons for cancer. RESULTS: Of 170 participants, 77% were currently using CAM. Disclosure to a physician was rather high with 63% having informed their oncologist. Asked whether the oncologist took time to discuss CAM, 74% answered 'no'. Most frequently used are biologically based therapies, relaxation techniques, prayer, and meditation. Most patients want to reduce side effects, boost their immune system, and get active. Almost half the participants had positive experiences with some type of CAM before they fell ill. CONCLUSION: Understanding patients' concepts of the etiology of cancer and accepting their goals for using CAM may help oncologists communicate with their patients and guide them to a safe use of CAM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000362616

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huebner, J., Prott, F. J., Micke, O., Muecke, R., Senf, B., Dennert, G., Muenstedt, K., & on behalf of PRIO (Working Group Prevention and Integrative Oncology - German Cancer Society)
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Venue
Oncology Research and Treatment
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2014
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
304-308
ISSN
  • 2296-5262 (ISSN-L)
  • 2296-5270
OpenAlex
W1488988377
Cited by
75
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6
FWCI
17.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oncology Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Medical Research and Treatments
Keywords
complementary and alternative medicine, cancer patients, physician-patient communication, disclosure of CAM use, health information sources, biologically based therapies, relaxation techniques, prayer and meditation, side effect reduction, immune system boosting
MeSH terms
Complementary Therapies, Attitude to Health, Germany, Humans, Neoplasms, Online Systems, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Prevalence, Health Care Surveys, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review