Part-I yoga according to Jain scriptures part-II prevalence and perceptions of cam in Indian cancer patients during and post treatment a multi-institutional cross sectional survey

Abstract

Objective Survey done on prevalence, predictive factors and knowledge of and attitude towards CAM use in cancer patients across three centres in India. To find out the socio-demographic characteristics and the reasons for patients who take recourse to CAM. Methods The study was conducted with sample size of 396 patients across three different states across HCG Cancer centers namely Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bangalore Institute of Oncology Specialty Center, and Gokula Curie Centre of Oncology, Bangalore, Bharath Hospital Institute of Oncology, Mysore, HCG centre (Balabhai Nanavati hospital), Mumbai. A random sampling of all subjects who gave their consent was recruited. Information of this research was given verbally to each patient; those who gave consent then filled in the questionnaire. The participants used 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire while waiting for the physician or if they were admitted or during chemotherapy. All Patients diagnosed with cancer and registered in the hospital based cancer registry of the 3 hospitals and who were traceable were included and patients who did not give their consent, children who could not answer and the parents who did not give the consent were excluded. Results (24.6%) patients took recourse to CAM; with (11.9%) who had used CAM and (12.7%) who were using CAM with frequency of use was regular (88%).Patients were aware to take CAM from qualified university degree holders (62%) with most commonly used therapies being Ayurveda (55%), Homeopathy (28%), Yoga (15%), and Herbal medicines were (10%). In CAM group males were significantly older compared to females. p=0.01 There was no difference between male and female with respect to time since diagnosis, CAM duration in weeks, CAM cost, how much these therapies helped, and how much conventional treatment helped. The use of Non CAM was significantly high with (p<0.01) between age group of males and females.CAM users meeting the doctor was significantly less (p<0.05) compared to those who did not use CAM. Time since diagnosis of disease was significant (p<0.001) in CAM group compared to that of Non CAM users. There was no significance for between groups with respect to distress and conventional treatment benefits. Conclusion Some of these therapies can also interfere with anti-cancer therapies for cancer directed treatment. Most of these patients did not inform their concerned doctors and neither did the doctors bother to ask their patients about CAM interventions. Therefore in the interest of the patient’s outcomes, it is imperative that the doctor and patient have healthy discussion regarding CAM usage and they should be educated to take recourse to CAM usage and being part of these treatments to facilitate healthy discussion. Taking recourse to CAM is mainly out of their choice but not the dissatisfaction of conventional treatment or medicine. If conventional treatment didn’t benefit then part of them would have taken CAM.