Numerous smaller studies on the subject have also revealed results to the same tune. Though, the CAM techniques were variable depending on factors like sex, race, age, education, nature and spread of cancerdefine, still cancer patients have found comfort in the shadow of this form of rehabilitation.
Dr. Ted Gansler, co-author of the study and society's director of medical content was of the opinion that many of the complementary methods are extremely popular amongst the cancer survivors and that they were focusing a lot of their time, money and attention on them.
He further supplemented that which is why it was imperative to determine which of the CAM techniques were actually helpful, not just to cure tumours and extend the life span, but also for alleviating the disease indicators and improving the quality of life of the cancer patients.
4,139 cancer survivors participated in the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors-I. Gansler's team cross-examined the patients 10 to 24 months after the diagnosis.
The study found that the complementary techniques of prayer (61.4%), relaxation (44.3%), faith / spiritual healing (42.4%), nutritional supplements (40.1%), meditation (15%), religious counseling (11.3%), massage (11.2%) and support group participation (9.7%) were the most accepted in the cancer survivors.
The researchers found that other complementary methods were not so liked by the cancer survivors with only 0.4% using hypnosis, 1% using biofeedback and 1.2 % using acupressure or acupuncture.
Gansler said, “All types of complementary methods are more popular among women.” 59% percent of women and 43 %of men turned to methods such as aromatherapy, art therapy, support groups, hypnosis, imagery/visualization, meditation and relaxation. Tai Chi and yoga were used by 10.1% women as compared to 1.9% men and 16.6% women used massage in contrast to 3.9% men.
Broadly speaking, the younger, more educated and well off cancer survivors and also the ones in advanced stages of cancer used the complementary methods to a greater extent.
Patients suffering from breast and ovarian cancer were bigger clients of complementary methods. Gansler said this was definitely not only because these form of cancers were seen only in women and not men.
If this was the case then why did women suffering from uterine cancer not use these methods too? They are women too, after all! The study could not provide a satisfactory explanation to this statistic.
Though the popularity levels of complementary therapies have risen very high lately, but the amount of benefit they endow is still very unclear and uncertain. More studies are in progress to assess their efficacy.
The fact that these methods were less prevalent in men was quite intriguing for the research team. Was it due to lack of opportunity? Was it because women considered it fashionable to use these methods? Or was it because complementary methods were more effectual in women? These questions continued to baffle the study team till the end. Nor could they conclude satisfactorily.
Dr. Harold Burstein, M.D., Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and an expert in alternative medicine said, “This study, like many before it, confirms that cancer patients actively pursue a variety of alternative and complementary therapies, usually in conjunction with standard approaches to cancer treatment."
He further added that the incentives for such treatments were undeniably worth delving into, because many patients have testified and sworn by their positive end results.
The detailed report on the study is published in the September 1 issue of ‘Cancer’.
Post new comment