| Title |
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) information and support needs of Chinese-speaking cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4288-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynda G. Balneaves, M. E. Wong, A. J. Porcino, T. L. O. Truant, S. E. Thorne, S. T. Wong |
| Abstract |
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is popular among Chinese-speaking cancer patients (CSCPs), but little research examines CAM use by Canadian CSCPs. The use of CAM is controversial because of potential interactions with conventional cancer treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore CSCPs' use of CAM, sources of CAM information, and decision support needs, as well as their experience of making CAM decisions. A sequential, multi-method research design was used: a secondary data analysis of a CAM use survey conducted in a Western Canadian regional cancer agency followed by a qualitative interpretive description approach to inquiry using semi-structured interviews with CSPCs and support persons. More than 65% of CSCPs reported using CAM. CSCPs favored biologically-based therapies, including traditional Chinese medicine herbs and other natural health products. Many CSCPs were using CAM without adequate culturally appropriate information and decision support. Those who made decisions spontaneously relied on peers for advice whereas deliberate decision makers sought information from multiple sources, including peers and the Internet, selecting therapies congruent with their cultural health perspectives and previous experiences with CAM. CSCPs rarely spoke with oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) about CAM use. CSCPs reported using CAM at rates significantly higher than for non-CSCPs. Given the predominance of biological-based therapies and the lack of consultation with oncology HCPs, it is imperative that CAM use be assessed and documented to ensure CSCPs' safety during cancer treatment. Culturally appropriate information and decision support is required to ensure that CSCPs are making safe and informed CAM decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 50% |
| United States | 3 | 21% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Scientists | 5 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 25% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,949,594
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#606
of 4,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,417
of 329,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#24
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 329,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.