Kim Sang Hyuck, Shin Dong Wook, Nam You-Seon, Kim So Young, Yang Hyung-Kook, Cho Be Long, Park Keeho, Jo Heui-Sug, Yim Chang-Yeol, Kam Sin, Park Jong-Hyock
Department of Family Medicine & Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Family Medicine & Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Health Promotion and Health Behavior, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea.
Complement Ther Med. 2016 Oct;28:29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.07.005. Epub 2016 Jul 29.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study sought to identify discrepancies between the expectations of patients with cancer and oncologists regarding the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), and to determine how patients evaluate CAM efficacy after its use.
Data from the Cancer Patient Experience Study, a nationwide survey, were used. Seven subdivided efficacy domains were included in the survey. An oncologist-patient matching analysis was done to assess the concordance of CAM efficacies between oncologists and patients with cancer. In addition, the patients' expectations of CAM efficacies were compared before and after use.
Out of 719 participants, 201 patients with cancer (28.0%) reported using CAMs. The patients with cancer generally tended to be more positive about CAM efficacies than the oncologists. The largest discrepancy in efficacy perception was found in the efficacy domain of survival benefit, which included complete disease remission and prolonged survival. Many patients reported that they did not experience the positive efficacy they had anticipated before use. However, a substantial proportion of patients indicated that CAMs were as effective as they had expected, even though there is little evidence supporting the CAM efficacies.
There was a marked discrepancy and a lack of concordance in expectations of CAM efficacy between patients with cancer and oncologists. Better communication between the patients and oncologists regarding CAM efficacy would be needed to make the patients to have shared expectations, and to reduce unnecessary CAM use.
本研究旨在确定癌症患者与肿瘤学家在对补充和替代医学（CAM）疗效期望方面的差异，并确定患者在使用CAM后如何评估其疗效。
使用了来自全国性调查“癌症患者体验研究”的数据。调查包括七个细分的疗效领域。进行了肿瘤学家与患者的匹配分析，以评估肿瘤学家与癌症患者之间对CAM疗效的一致性。此外，比较了患者使用CAM前后对其疗效的期望。
在719名参与者中，201名癌症患者（28.0%）报告使用了CAM。癌症患者总体上对CAM疗效的看法比肿瘤学家更为积极。在生存获益的疗效领域发现了最大的疗效认知差异，其中包括疾病完全缓解和生存期延长。许多患者报告说，他们没有体验到使用前预期的积极疗效。然而，相当一部分患者表示，尽管几乎没有证据支持CAM的疗效，但CAM与他们预期的一样有效。
癌症患者与肿瘤学家在对CAM疗效的期望方面存在明显差异且缺乏一致性。需要患者与肿瘤学家就CAM疗效进行更好的沟通，以使患者有共同的期望，并减少不必要的CAM使用。
