Positive Health Online

Abstract

SALMENPERAE and colleagues, Department of Nursing, University of Turku, Finland, conducted a study to describe the attitudes of patients with breast or prostate cancer towards complementary therapies .

Background

Methodology

Data were collected via a postal questionnaire administered to 216 patients with breast cancer (response rate, 55.4%) and 190 patients with prostate cancer (response rate, 54.9%) in southern and south-western Finland. The questionnaire comprised 44 Likert-type statements, which were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, t tests and two-way ANOVAs.

Results

54% of patients with breast cancer and 45% of those with prostate cancer believed that people with cancer may benefit from complementary therapies, although they did not think these therapies actually could cure cancer. More than half of respondents were dubious about using complementary therapies as long as there was not solid scientific evidence. Most believed that complementary therapies were used because they gave people hope (women, 88%; men, 72%) or 'something to cling to' (women, 83%; men, 76%). Respondents believed most in dietary therapies and least in healing . Respondents were confused and uncertain about the professional competencies and expertise of people who provided complementary therapies. About a quarter had spoken to their doctor about complementary therapies. Only a few had talked about the matter with nursing staff. About half of respondents thought that doctors and nurses took a negative attitude towards complementary therapies. Patients who had talked with their doctor about complementary therapies tended to show a more positive attitude .

Conclusion

References

Salmenperae L et al. Attitudes of patients with breast and prostate cancer toward complementary therapies in Finland. Cancer Nursing 24 (4): 328-34. Aug 2001.

Comment

The results from this very small postal sample are quite contradictory, in that although about half of the breast and prostate patients contacted thought that complementary therapies might be therapeutically beneficial, more than half the respondents expressed doubts about evidence and competence of complementary practitioners. Since these patients are cancer patients (the research abstract doesn't provide details of what stage of treatment the patients were in) it would have been exceedingly useful to discover their attitudes to their conventional cancer treatment. I would have thought that many patients might also have expressed doubts about the evidence and efficacy of the conventional treatment provided.