Use of complementary and alternative medicine before and after organ removal due to urologic cancer
Authors Mani J, Juengel E, Arslan I, Bartsch G, Filmann N, Ackermann H, Nelson K, Haferkamp A, Engl T, Blaheta R
Received 7 June 2015
Accepted for publication 31 July 2015
Published 1 October 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 1407—1412
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Jens Mani,1 Eva Juengel,1 Ilhan Arslan,1 Georg Bartsch,1 Natalie Filmann,2 Hanns Ackermann,2 Karen Nelson,3 Axel Haferkamp,1 Tobias Engl,1,* Roman A Blaheta1,*
1Department of Urology, 2Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, 3Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Objective: Many patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as primary treatment or symptom relief for a variety of illnesses. This study was designed to investigate the influence of surgical removal of a tumor-bearing urogenital organ on CAM use.
Methods: From 2007 to 2011, 350 patients underwent major urological surgery for kidney, prostate, or bladder cancer at the Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. Data from 172 patients (49%), who returned a questionnaire, were retrospectively evaluated using the hospital information system along with the questionnaire to objectify CAM use 2 years before and after surgery.
Results: From the 172 patients returning questionnaires, 56 (33%) used CAM before and/or after surgery and 116 (67%) never used CAM. Of the 56 CAM users, 30 (54%) used CAM presurgery and 53 (95%) used CAM postsurgery, indicating a significant change of mind about CAM use. Patients of German nationality used CAM significantly more than patients of other nationalities. Higher educational status (high-school diploma or higher) was a significant factor in favor of CAM use. The most common type of CAM used before/after surgery was an alternative medical system (63/49%), a manipulative and body-based method (50/19%), and a biological-based therapy (37/32%). Information about CAM, either provided by medical professionals or by other sources, was the main reason determining whether patients used CAM or not.
Conclusion: The number of patients using CAM almost doubled after surgical removal of a cancer-bearing organ. Better awareness and understanding of CAM use by medical professionals could improve patient counseling.
Keywords: complementary and alternative medicine, surgery, urologic cancer
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]