A122
A qualitative synthesis of the use of complementary and alternative medicine after a diagnosis of cancer
Charlotte Paterson1, Janet Smithson1, Nicky Britten1, Maggie Evans3, George Lewith2
1Peninsula Medical School, Exeter, UK, 2University of Southampton, UK, 3University of Bristol, UK
Background
Between 30-40% of adults with a diagnosis of cancer use complementary therapies alongside their biomedical treatment. Many qualitative studies have investigated these experiences in different patient populations but this literature has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to synthesise and integrate the findings from published qualitative studies in the last 10 years in order to inform service provision and trial design.
Method
A multidisciplinary research team used the method of meta-ethnography. A systematic and extensive literature search located 26 relevant papers. Each paper was read by two members of the research team, who carried out quality appraisal and data extraction to identify the main themes. The key concepts of each study were translated into those of other studies in order to develop new or expanded conceptual themes and a synthesis of how these themes fit together.
Result
Six key concepts were identified as central to understanding patients experiences of complementary therapies after a diagnosis of cancer: a) Control - a niche of choice in the context of loss of control due to illness and invasive treatment. b) Connecting - with their feelings and emotions, with their own body, and with other people. c) Wellbeing- short and long-term improvements in symptoms or general quality of life. d) Transformation- longer term changes that indicate a fundamental shift in perspective. e) Polarisation patients typically experienced CAM and biomedicine as two separate, unmixable entities. f) Integration patients appreciated integration at either the organizational or practitioner level.
Conclusion
In relation to service provision, most patients in this study preferred integration of complementary therapies and biomedical treatment and welcomed biomedical practitioners who were interested in and non-judgmental about such integration. In relation to outcomes, increased control, connection and communication were all important perceived effects, alongside symptom relief and improved wellbeing.
