Mapping patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use in cancer: An explorative cross-sectional study of individuals with reported positive "exceptional" experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients is common and widespread, levels of commitment to CAM vary. "Committed" CAM use is important to investigate, as it may be associated with elevated risks and benefits, and may affect use of biomedically-oriented health care (BHC). Multiple methodological approaches were used to explore and map patterns of CAM use among individuals postulated to be committed users, voluntarily reporting exceptional experiences associated with CAM use after cancer diagnosis.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>The verbatim transcripts of thirty-eight unstructured interviews were analyzed in two steps. First, manifest content analysis was used to elucidate and map participants' use of CAM, based on the National Center for Complementary Medicine (NCCAM)'s classification system. Second, patterns of CAM use were explored statistically using principal component analysis.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>The 38 participants reported using a total of 274 specific CAM (median = 4) consisting of 148 different therapeutic modalities. Most reported therapies could be categorized using the NCCAM taxonomy (n = 224). However, a significant number of CAM therapies were not consistent with this categorization (n = 50); consequently, we introduced two additional categories: <it>Spiritual/health literature </it>and <it>Treatment centers</it>. The two factors explaining the largest proportion of variation in CAM usage patterns were a) number of CAM modalities used and b) a category preference for <it>Energy therapies </it>over the categories <it>Alternative Medical Systems </it>and <it>Treatment centers </it>or vice versa.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We found considerable heterogeneity in patterns of CAM use. By analyzing users' own descriptions of CAM in relation to the most commonly used predefined professional taxonomy, this study highlights discrepancies between user and professional conceptualizations of CAM not previously addressed. Beyond variations in users' reports of CAM, our findings indicate some patterns in CAM usage related to number of therapies used and preference for different CAM categories.</p

Inhaled furosemide for relief of air hunger versus sense of breathing effort: a randomized controlled trial

Background. Inhaled furosemide offers a potentially novel treatment for dyspnoea, which may reflect modulation of pulmonary stretch receptor feedback to the brain. Specificity of relief is unclear because different neural pathways may account for different components of clinical dyspnoea. Our objective was to evaluate if inhaled furosemide relieves the air hunger component (uncomfortable urge to breathe) but not the sense of breathing work/effort of dyspnoea. Methods. A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in 16 healthy volunteers studied in a university research laboratory. Each participant received 3 mist inhalations (either 40 mg furosemide or 4 ml saline) separated by 30–60 min on 2 test days. Each participant was randomised to mist order ‘furosemide-saline-furosemide’ (n- = 8) or ‘saline-furosemide-saline’ (n = 8) on both days. One day involved hypercapnic air hunger tests (mean ± SD PCO2 = 50 ± 3.7 mmHg; constrained ventilation = 9 ± 1.5 L/min), the other involved work/effort tests with targeted ventilation (17 ± 3.1 L/min) and external resistive load (20cmH2O/L/s). Primary outcome was ratings of air hunger or work/effort every 15 s on a visual analogue scale. During saline inhalations, 1.5 mg furosemide was infused intravenously to match the expected systemic absorption from the lungs when furosemide is inhaled. Corresponding infusions of saline during furosemide inhalations maintained procedural blinding. Average visual analogue scale ratings (%full scale) during the last minute of air hunger or work/effort stimuli were analysed using Linear Mixed Methods. Results. Data from all 16 participants were analysed. Inhaled furosemide relative to inhaled saline significantly improved visual analogues scale ratings of air hunger (Least Squares Mean ± SE − 9.7 ± 2%; p = 0.0015) but not work/effort (+ 1.6 ± 2%; p = 0.903). There were no significant adverse events. Conclusions. Inhaled furosemide was effective at relieving laboratory induced air hunger but not work/effort in healthy adults; this is consistent with the notion that modulation of pulmonary stretch receptor feedback by inhaled furosemide leads to dyspnoea relief that is specific to air hunger, the most unpleasant quality of dyspnoea

Cancer patients' experiences of using complementary therapies: polarization and integration

Objective: The use of complementary therapies by people with cancer is commonplace. In a recent synthesis of 26 qualitative studies of patients' experiences of complementary therapy use after a diagnosis of cancer, the emergent theme of ‘polarization’ was the most notable barrier to a positive experience of complementary therapies. In this paper, we explore the two synthesis concepts of ‘polarization’ and ‘integration’, and their relationship to health service policies and guidelines on integrated services.Methods: A systematic literature search and a meta-ethnography to synthesize key concepts.Results: The majority of patients who used complementary therapies after a diagnosis of cancer wanted to be certain that the therapies were not interfering with their conventional cancer treatment. They valued the therapies in wider terms including: taking ‘a niche of control’, relieving symptoms, improving wellbeing, and promoting reconnection and social interaction. The emergent theme of ‘polarization’ suggested that conventional physicians who are perceived to be poorly informed or negative about complementary approaches induce patient anxiety, safety concerns, and difficulties in access. They may compromise their therapeutic relationship and, rarely, they may trigger patients to abandon conventional medicine altogether. In contrast, integrated advice and/or services were highly valued by patients, although some patients preferred their complementary health care to be provided in a non-medicalized environment.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the current polarized situation is unhelpful to patients, detrimental to therapeutic relationships and may occasionally be dangerous. They indicate that complementary therapies, in a supportive role, should be integrated into mainstream cancer car