↓ Skip to main content

Use of complimentary and alternative medicine by breast cancer patients: prevalence, patterns and communication with physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Use of complimentary and alternative medicine by breast cancer patients: prevalence, patterns and communication with physicians
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00520-002-0356-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taka Ashikaga, Kwadwo Bosompra, Patricia O'Brien, Lee Nelson

Abstract

This study examined the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies by breast cancer patients and the communication of their CAM use to their physicians relative to lymphedema symptoms and other factors. Breast cancer patients ( N = 148) in the State of Vermont were interviewed 2-3 years after their primary surgery using computer-aided telephone interviewing methods. Questionnaire items included demographic information, treatment, CAM use, lymphedema symptoms, and other measures. A large proportion (72.3%) reported using at least one CAM treatment after surgery. The most frequently used treatments were vitamins and nonfood supplements (72.3%), with herbal treatments, meditation, and traditional massage each being reported by about one-fifth of the women. Age, education, adjuvant chemotherapy, and extremity swelling were associated with use of more CAM treatments in a regression model. A large proportion (73.8%) of CAM users reported their CAM use to their physicians. Correlations between patients' income, adjuvant radiation therapy, and adjuvant tamoxifen use with communication of CAM use to their physicians were sought in a logistic regression model. CAM use is high among breast cancer patients in Vermont, and the number of CAM therapies used is related to demographic factors, adjuvant treatment, and lymphedema symptoms. Communication of CAM use to physicians appears to be multifaceted.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Lebanon 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Master 10 8%
Unspecified 9 8%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 28%
Psychology 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Unspecified 9 8%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,099
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#4,009
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,645
of 225,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#106
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 225,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.