↓ Skip to main content

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Cancer Patients in Rural Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Integrative Cancer Therapies, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Cancer Patients in Rural Australia
Published in
Integrative Cancer Therapies, April 2015
DOI 10.1177/1534735415580679
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aimee Sullivan, Peter Gilbar, Colin Curtain

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated the high prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in metropolitan cancer cohorts but few have been conducted in regional and remote populations. This study aimed to investigate the trends and regional variations in CAM use by cancer patients at a regional cancer care center in Toowoomba, South East Queensland, Australia. All English-speaking adult cancer patients attending the regional cancer care center were invited to participate. Eligible patients were provided a self-administered questionnaire that was developed based on published surveys. Ethics approval was obtained. Overall 142 patients completed the questionnaire and 68% were currently or had previously used at least one form of CAM. CAM users and nonusers did not differ significantly by region, age, gender, time since diagnosis, income, town size, treatment intent, or metastases. CAM users were more likely to have a higher level of education. Concurrent CAM use with conventional treatment was reported by approximately half of respondents. The most common reason for CAM use was "to improve general physical well-being." The most common sources of CAM information were family (31%) and friends (29%). Disclosure of CAM use to either the general practitioner or specialist was reported by 46% and 33% of patients, respectively. The most common reason for nondisclosure was "doctor never asked." This study supports previous research that CAM use is as common in regional and remote areas as metropolitan areas. Nondisclosure of CAM use to health professionals was common. Future research needs to focus on strategies to improve communication between patients and health professionals about the use of CAM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Master 13 14%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2015.
All research outputs
#13,072,573
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Integrative Cancer Therapies
#374
of 811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,645
of 265,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative Cancer Therapies
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.