Correlates and patterns of using complementary health approaches among individuals with recent and longer-term cancer diagnoses: a US national cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE

To (1) describe and compare the prevalence of using of complementary health approaches, focusing on mind and body practices, and reasons for use among cancer survivors, and (2) examine characteristics associated with use among those with a recent and non-recent diagnosis of cancer compared to those without a previous cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

Using data from the 2022 US National Health Interview Survey, prevalence estimates were derived for using any complementary health approach, by category (manipulative body-based [chiropractor, acupuncture, massage], creative [music therapy, art therapy], and mind-body [meditation, guided imagery, yoga]), and reasons for use. Regression models identified correlates of use among all participants and within cancer diagnosis subgroups.

RESULTS

Among 26,523 adult participants, overall prevalence of using any complementary approach was similar amongst individuals with recent cancer (40.17%), non-recent cancer (37.75%), and no cancer diagnosis (37.93%). However, odds of use were higher amongst recent (OR = 1.37) and relatively long term (OR = 1.14) cancer survivors compared to those without a history of cancer in adjusted models (both p < 0.05). In cancer survivors, mind-body approaches were mostly used for general health purposes, whereas manipulative approaches were used for general health and pain management. Female sex, younger age, higher education and income were among the prominent variables associated with using complementary approaches.

CONCLUSION

We present an important snapshot of the landscape of using complementary approaches, specifically mind and body practices, in adult cancer survivors in the US. Inequalities in access to these therapies may exist, as use remains highest amongst those with higher socioeconomic conditions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Given the prevalence and potential benefits of complementary approaches among cancer survivors, there is a need to better understand their effectiveness, optimal use, and integration into cancer care. Further research is needed to understand and address access barriers that might exist amongst some cancer survivors.