Background: Unconvential therapies obviously play an important role in the treatment of cancer, but still little is known about the motives of the users. Material and Methods: 340 cancer patients (3 diagnoses with 100 patients each: bronchial carcinoma, leukemia/lymphoma, colorectal carcinoma) were investigated during aftercare by a clinical questionnaire focusing on experiences with and attitudes to unconventional treatments. Results: 21% had used unconventional treatments (‘users’), mainly adressed as ‘mistletoe’, ‘cancer cures’ and ‘biological treatments’. The main motive of the users was the ‘wish not to leave anything untried’ (75%), followed by the ‘trust in the efficacy of the alternative treatment’ (47%). Only 8% of all patients reported unconventional forms of treatment to be genuinely an ‘alternative’ to conventional medicine. The main objection to unconventional forms of therapy was patient’s trust in conventional medicine (71%). Comparing ‘users’ and ‘nonusers’ of unconventional therapies showed that users are significantly younger, better educated and with a bigger women/men-ration among them. The groups did not differ with regard to most of the quality of life parameters (life satisfaction, complaints, anxiety, depression), but ‘users’ were much more dissatisfied with their medical treatment beforehand (conventional medicine). Conclusions: Unconventional therapies are more likely to express the patients’ search for more chances than to document a rejection of ‘school medicine’ and should be integrated in the doctor-patient-dialogue accordingly.

Keywords:
Cancer, Unconventional therapy, Attitudes, Coping, Quality of life, Lung cancer, Leukaemia, Lymphoma, Colorectal carcinoma
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1997 S. Karger AG, Basel
1997
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.