(Using) Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Perceptions of Palliative Patients with Cancer

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 11, Number 1, 2008 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2007.0102 (Using) Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Perceptions of Palliative Patients with Cancer JAKLIN A. ELIOTT, B.A. (Hons), Ph.D., 1 COLIN P. KEALEY, B.S.M.D., 2 and IAN N. OLVER, M.D., Ph.D. 3 ABSTRACT Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly common within Western societies, including Australia. This parallels calls for or claims of integration of CAM into mainstream medical practice, with oncology and palliative care specifically nominated as appropriate arenas for integration. However, there is an absence of studies examining patient perceptions of both CAM and CAM users. In this study, 28 adult patients with cancer close to death were interviewed regarding treatment decisions at the end of life, including decisions about CAM. Thematic analysis of transcribed interviews found consistent differences in talk around CAM between 12 users and 16 nonusers of CAM, primarily related to the perceived value of these treatments. Drawing upon a mind body discourse that holds individuals responsible for their health, users valued CAM for the perceived benefit to physical or psychological well-being and compatibility with a holistic approach to health care, deemed to complement or augment conventional medicine. However, some were selfcritical of their failure to continue with CAM, despite practical and financial difficulties experienced. Nonusers devalued CAM as unable to cure their disease (but did not similarly devalue conventional medicine), and negatively construed CAM users as desperate, or as challenging medical wisdom. Despite increased legitimation and medicalization of CAM, patients assess CAM differently to allopathic medicine, with different (positive and negative) assessments attributable to users. The misperception by many (nonusers) that CAM are intended to cure and available negative moral and social judgments centred around CAM use may deter patient uptake of CAM in areas where they have proven efficacy in symptom control. INTRODUCTION DESPITE SIGNIFICANT ADVANCES by scientific medicine, use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing worldwide. 1 3 The typical user of CAM is consistently reported as more likely to be female, young to middle aged, white, with higher levels of income and education, and to have particular health characteristics including overall poor health, increased levels of pain, increased anxiety, reduced quality of life, and chronic illness. 4 6 It has been suggested that CAM is most useful for relief of conditions that conventional approaches do not satisfactorily treat, and specifically for symptoms associated with cancer or cancer treatment when palliation rather than cure is attainable. 7,8 However, a systematic review of 26 surveys worldwide reported CAM use among adult patients with cancer to be between 7% and 64% with an average of 31%. 9 Similarly, reported use in patients with cancer in Australia varies from as low as 14.5% for elderly women, 10 to 22% 52% for all patients with cancer, 11,12 and 1 Cancer Research Centre, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 2 Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3 The Cancer Council Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 58

PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF (USING) CAM 59 32% 48% for patients with incurable cancer, with evidence that rates of CAM use increase as death approaches. 12 14 THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION Wide variances in reported prevalence of CAM may be attributable both to the differences in populations sampled and definitions of CAM used. 9,15 Defining CAM by inclusion is problematic as it refers to a heterogeneous category, including a wide range of products and practices. 7,16 18 CAM modalities encompass multiple and not always concordant meanings of the body and illness/health, 19,20 and have a range of legitimacy accorded by medical practitioners, 21,22 oncologists, 23 and researchers alike. 12 Accordingly, some have noted that it is of questionable validity to treat all CAM as if equivalent. 17,24 Some have attempted to classify CAM into different categories, but the number and nature of these vary considerably. For example, in their study examining choices of unconventional treatment by patients with cancer, Kimby and colleagues 25 differentiated between two principles of [unconventional] treatment, being standardized (offered to all patients: e.g., acupuncture, dietary supplements), and individualized (offered to selected patients, e.g., homeopathy, psychotherapy). Tataryn 20 proposed four hierarchically ordered paradigms based on assumptions of health and illness associated within each. They were body (e.g., shark cartilage, massage), mind body (e.g., hypnosis, meditation), body energy (e.g., Ayurveda, therapeutic touch), and body spirit (e.g., faith healing, prayer). The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine 26 currently identifies four types: whole medical systems (e.g., Ayuveda, homeopathy), mind body medicine (e.g., meditation, prayer), biologically based practices (e.g., dietary supplements, shark cartilage), manipulative and body-based practices (e.g., chiropractic, massage). Kapchuk and Eisenberg 27 specifically noted a potential semantic chaos, with no agreement on terminology, but went on to propose a two-tiered system of varieties of unconventional healing 28 separating out CAM from parochial unconventional medicine (three categories: ethno-medicine [e.g., Hmong practices], religious healing [e.g., Christian Science], folk medicine [e.g., copper bracelets for arthritis]). CAM itself, they proposed, consists of five main sectors, namely, professional systems (e.g., massage, homeopathy), popular health reform (e.g., nutritional supplements, macrobiotics), new age healing (e.g., therapeutic touch, Reiki), mind body (mind cure: e.g., guru-endorsed techniques such as affirmations; mind body: e.g., hypnosis), and nonnormative scientific enterprises (e.g., iridology, chelation). With some justification it has been observed that individual practices or modalities can be difficult to cleanly categorize 18 ; that, for example, meditation or massage may feature within several different CAM practices, with different assumptions regarding their mode of operation. Notwithstanding the diversity of practices and products potentially subsumed within CAM, the common use of the term lends itself to the perception of CAM as characterized by some unifying feature, and some have suggested that this lies in a shared emphasis on a concept of vitalism : that living organisms are sustained by a vital force that is different from and greater than physical and chemical forces, often emphasising a mind body connection or notion of holism. 17,29 It has also been argued the defining feature of CAM is that CAM values subjectivity (i.e., the personal experiences of patients and practitioners) as the criteria for determining the worth of a practice addressing health care 30 ; and similarly, that CAM prioritizes the individual and personal knowledge of both healer and patient, emphasizing their agency and control in health and illness. 31 Typically, CAM is defined by exclusion, and positioned in relation to allopathic medicine, as either offering services not provided by or complementing orthodox or mainstream medicine, or through its absence within established medical practice a. 19,25,32 The very term implicitly defines CAM in relation to conventional medicine, being complementary when used with, and alternative when used instead of, allopathic medicine. 33,34 However, the boundaries between conventional medicine and CAM vary across time and place 25,27,35 and specific therapies may be complementary or alternative depending on the intent of the user. 22,35 Furthermore, as particular CAM therapies are subject to scientific testing and found to have some efficacy so they are incorporated into mainstream medical practice. 3,36 This has led some to recommend the subcategory integrative medicine as combining the a We note, however, the variable terms used to describe the dominant medical system within industrialized nations, including (but not limited to) orthodox, mainstream, clinical, scientific, allopathic, conventional, biomedicine, and traditional medicine. Although these are typically not defined, we take them to refer to health care practices and discourses that uphold scientific principles regarding cause and effect, are endorsed through their demonstrated efficacy during standardized experimental procedures, and subject to stringent governmental and professional regulation.

60 best of both. 3,35 37 However, some have questioned the desirability of integration, claiming this process not only incorrectly presumes ontological commensurability, but might divest CAM of its uniqueness, reduce choices available to consumers, and result in further marginalization and subjugation of CAM practices not so integrated. 17,26,38,39 Nonetheless, some claim that integration of CAM and allopathic medicine is already occurring within Australia, albeit at a slower pace than in the United Kingdom and the United States, 17 and point to many factors as evidence of this, including: the establishment of sanctioned university degree courses for CAM paralleling an increasing biomedical content of natural medicine courses; acceptance of some CAM by private health insurance institutions; granting of tax exemption status to some CAM practitioners concurrent with the development of professional regulatory bodies within some Australian states; increasing scientific testing of CAM with demonstration of efficacy in symptom control for some specific CAMs; increasing publication of CAM-based research within mainstream medical journals, and the emergence of CAM-specific journals; and the assertions that evidence-based CAM should be part of mainstream care, including from within the Australian Medical Association. 16,22,32,35 Simultaneously, claims within Australia that physicians (including general practitioners, palliative care physicians, and oncologists) should know about and discuss CAM appropriately with their patients 16,21,35,38,40 and specific advocacy regarding the merits of CAM, particularly for cancer, 23 or palliative care 40 patients, are supported by further calls for increased medical education about CAM, 36 with evidence that greater numbers of general practitioners are using, referring to, or specifically training in CAM. 22,41 Many similar developments have been observed internationally. 1,19,42 Within the medical literature, distinctions are sometimes explicitly drawn between use of CAM for cure or for care, with the former labeled as inappropriate and the latter as having merit, particularly where palliation of symptoms rather than cure is the focus of conventional medical treatment. 23,28,40,43 Following scientific testing, some specific CAM therapies have been found to have some efficacy in the context of cancer and palliative care. This has led to qualified endorsement for therapies such as hypnosis, meditation, relaxation, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, massage, exercise, and some dietary regimes, particularly for improving patient psychological well-being and reducing troubling symptoms such as pain or nausea to the point where these might be considered part of mainstream care. 34,44,45 However, there are discrepancies between the use of CAM by patients with cancer and that recommended or approved within oncology and palliative care. Studies report that some patients with cancer, including with incurable or advanced cancer, do not access these (potentially beneficial) treatments. Conversely, although some patients use CAM in a manner approved by the medical wisdom (that is, to improve quality of life or for relief of symptoms), others expect that CAM will cure their disease. 11 13,46 49 Despite the increased medical focus on determining various correlates of CAM use or reasons for using CAM 4,6,12 14,28,47,50 little is known about the moral judgments associated with these or indeed whether they vary between CAM users and nonusers. Nonetheless, studies reporting that up to 75% of individuals choosing CAM report having done so because of recommendations by family and friends, 7,51 53 because they gain hope from CAM use, 11,48 or because of CAM s compatibility with a world-view, including a desire to take responsibility for their own health, 4,17,31,54 all indicate that CAM use has social and moral connotations. 6,20,50 CAM use is belief-centred [and] value-laden, 54 and if the trend toward increased integration between CAM and allopathic medicine is to continue, investigation of the meaning of CAM to patients in the context of medical treatment will enable clinicians to best advise patients on potential benefits and consequences of using CAM, and address any misperceptions that patients might hold regarding these. As both palliative care and oncology have been specifically identified as particularly suitable domains within which to promote integrative medicine, 3,8,34,38,40,43 in this study we sought to determine the views of terminally ill patients with cancer regarding the use of CAM. Our aims were not to investigate rates or reasons for CAM use in this group, but to articulate what patients said about using CAM or those who use them, to determine the assumptions they made about CAM use and CAM users, relating these to the justifications they presented for their own use or nonuse of CAM. METHOD ELIOTT ET AL. This study was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia, and approved by the hospital ethics committee. As part of a larger study on endof-life decision-making, patients from the hospital palliative and oncology clinics meeting selection criteria were asked to participate in an interview about mak-

PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF (USING) CAM 61 TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND DISEASE-RELATED DETAILS OF PALLIATIVE CANCER PATIENTS INTERVIEWED Details Number Age Mean (SD) 61.4 (12.8) Range 39 79 Gender Male 15 Female 13 Partner status Married/partnered 18 Single 3 Divorced 4 Widowed 3 Highest education level Primary 7 Secondary 12 Tertiary 7 Unknown 2 Site of primary cancer Colorectal 6 Lungs 6 Breast 3 Lymph 3 Renal 3 Other 7 SD, standard deviation. ing treatment decisions at the end of life. Selection criteria were that patients were diagnosed with confirmed stage IV cancer, identified as within weeks of their death (82% dying within 3 months of interview), aware of this, with English as their first language. Based on their long-term clinical interaction, their attending medical oncologist assessed them as capable of coherent discussion and emotionally stable, therefore likely to suffer no undue effects due to the subjects raised. Follow-up counseling was offered but no patients accessed this. Twenty-eight patients provided signed informed consent to be interviewed (see Table 1 for demographic and disease-related details), and half of these chose to have a friend or family present, some of whom occasionally spoke. In this paper we analyze participant responses to the prompt questions, Some patients have talked about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Have you heard about CAM? What do you think about CAM? We did not provide definitions or examples of CAM in order to encourage patients to talk about their own perceptions of CAM, and not limit conversation to terms set by the interviewer. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, with text then entered into N6 software to facilitate analysis. Thematic analysis focused on the search for repeated patterns of meaning, 55 specifically looking at variation in how CAM were discussed by patients dying of cancer. In selecting quotes to illustrate discussed themes, all instances within a theme were compared and the most concise and representative quotes presented. 56 RESULTS Following sustained reading of the transcripts, patients were categorized into those who mentioned using CAM during their cancer treatment (n 12; 42%), and those who did not (n 16; 58%); two patients reported using CAM but identified as nonusers. Those patients who did use CAM typically said that CAM use was prompted by a number of factors, including a desire for cure, for social reasons, or to improve quality of life through control of disease symptoms or treatment side effects, whereas nonusers considered CAM-use to result exclusively from a desire for cure (Table 2). b There were consistent differences between the responses of those identifying as CAM users and nonusers. These centered on the possession of faith in CAM, perceived use or value of CAM (i.e., what was it for?) with associated judgments on using or users of CAM, issues of cost, and the relationship between CAM and conventional medicine. For all patients, regardless of use or not of CAM, CAM usage was consistently predicated upon a stated or implied mind body connection, specifically on the ability of belief to impact upon disease progression. CAM users typically said things like: You ve got to believe in it yourself to make anything work. If you believe in something, it ll help along the track. If you don t believe in something and you go the other way, you re soon gone aren t you. Nonusers did not deny the power of belief, but claimed not to have it, saying: I can t see me ever going into [CAM], I m not a great believer in things like that. I think in the end, sometimes [CAM] works because it works psychologically perhaps. But, in b Specific CAM identified as used by CAM users were naturopathy (3); homeopathy (1); Reiki (2); acupuncture (1); dietary supplements (8), specifically including laetrile (1), noni juice (2), colloidal silver (1), FloraEssence (1), and shark cartilage (2); dietary change focusing on improved nutritional practices (8); meditation (4); massage (2); relaxation (2); affirmations (1); and prayer (1).

62 ELIOTT ET AL. TABLE 2. REASONS GIVEN DURING INTERVIEW FOR WHY PATIENTS USED CAM Reasons given for CAM-use a Cure Social reasons Quality of life CAM-Users (n 12) 8 b 8 b 6 Non-users (n 16) 15 b a Totals exceed given n, as some patients gave more than one reason. b Six patients nominated both cure and social reasons. my case, there s never been anyone cured from mesothelioma.... Many nonusers spoke rather disparagingly of those undertaking CAM, characterizing them as desperately seeking a cure, often contrasting themselves favorably. Some depicted CAM users as different to themselves, being younger or prepared to travel to distant (more exotic) places. I think I m too realistic for these naturopaths, and all the rest... [T]hese others... get robbed left, right, and centre too, because they re that gullible that they ll do anything, but, no,... it s not my thing. I ve heard of no good coming out of any of it... I think you d grasp at anything. They want to [try CAM] if they re young, well they d wanna go on longer wouldn t they? A lot of people go to Queensland for those sort of alternatives, but I don t think it s of much value. The assumption of nonusers that the primary function of CAM was to provide cure also constituted some justification for their nonuse. Other potential benefits of CAM were typically deemed insignificant and dismissed. If it s [cancer] there, and it s uncurable, it s uncurable [sic]. Oh, I wouldn t be bothered. Patient: Oh, I ve read about [CAM], but... I don t want to spend the last six months of my life running around looking for an elusive cure.... Husband: She might get a little bit more healthier... or whatever. But it wouldn t alter the outcome at all. The two patients who had used CAM but identified themselves as nonusers also implied that the failure of CAM to cure their cancer constituted reason for their discontinuing CAM. Patient: No [I haven t tried CAM]. Apart from chemo, that s all I ve tried. Wife: He had a bit of almond kernels for a while, the apricot kernels, but Patient: Apple seeds. Interviewer: Why didn t you carry on with it? Patient: Oh, the first point of call was the hospital... and these days the percentages [of conventional treatment] are improving towards cures, and everything that I read, you couldn t get any strong evidence that alternative medicines were being any great use. We went on to shark cartilage, but we were too late for that I think, but we just tried that as a resort.... There s a lot of these people that claim that these things have cured these things, but there s no proof there that they have, so, good luck to them as far as I m concerned, but no, no. It was noteworthy that the framing of CAM exclusively in terms of treatment for cure was invariably associated with its nonuse. Given a judgment that cure was unlikely to result from CAM use, patients either failed to undertake CAM or discontinued its use once it became clear that cure was not likely to be attained, and in both cases were united in their dismissal of CAM. By contrast, the majority of CAM users identified CAM as providing benefits other than cure, these often constituting reasons why they undertook CAM. One of these was a physical benefit, either amelioration of the side effects of conventional medicine, or increased general well-being. What I found most interesting was [help with] the side-effects thing. [CAM] helps with congestion, it helps with just general well-being... I tried with an attitude, oh what the hell have I got to lose, and found that I felt better for them. This last patient also spoke of psychological gains from using CAM.

PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF (USING) CAM 63 Patient: Lots of the other things are therapeutic because they come into the realm of nurturing.... I don t know that any would claim that they necessarily have therapeutic effects directly, but I enjoyed them. Interviewer: They made you feel better Patient: Yeah, yeah Interviewer: Even if they didn t make you better Patient: Yes, that s right. Her further speech constitutes endorsement of the philosophical underpinnings of CAM, away from conventional orthodoxy. Although she implied that her initial motivation was indeed to attain a cure, she also attested to the value of using CAM outside this goal, noting as well its positive effect upon her social world. I think the biggest thing has been the mental shift from being so conventional and logical and orthodox to being more open and aware and looking around, and taking pleasure in the sunshine and being with the children, [and] my friends.... It started off as a panic driven desperation of Ian Gawler [prominent advocate and success story of CAM treatment] did it and got better so therefore I will too, to become a much more philosophical decision. Some CAM users stated that they were influenced by social factors, specifically mentioning their consideration of opinions or recommendations of family. [My husband] has always been into [CAM].... I tend to let him have his way too often, but (laughs) don t we all? I wanted to pursue [CAM], but I found myself caught between a husband who didn t agree with it, and also the shock and the fright, and my decision after quite a lot of deliberating was to go with the conventional medicine first.... Patient: After I d finished with the chemotherapy and radiotherapy... I thought well, I ll go on that [CAM] further. Husband: But there was a certain pressure there. Patient: As in family wanting me to do it Husband: Yes as in family, wanting you to, to Patient: to do everything Husband: yes, to do everything... The language used in these recounts suggests that, once raised in a social context, the decision to use or not to use CAM has consequences in terms of how the individual patient position themselves and others in a familial relationship. It further highlights that use of CAM may not simply reflect an individual preference to undertake responsibility for their health, and points to the moral implications that may be drawn as a consequence of the decisions made. CAM users perceived CAM as providing a range of benefits beyond the focus on cure that dominated the accounts of nonusers. Yet some CAM users reported not continuing with specific therapies, typically attributing this to some moral lack in themselves, while simultaneously speaking of the costs of CAM use. I didn t have as much energy and as much zeal for [CAM dietary treatment] as I had the first time.... it s very expensive. So I was sort of not doing it as wholeheartedly as before. I did it for a couple of weeks and then I wasn t strong enough. And to prepare it all, you can buy the stuff, but it s about nine bucks a bottle, and you needed three bottles a day. Both CAM users and nonusers spoke of the high cost of CAM, but in terms that reflected a judgment of what CAM could or should do: If it was to cure, it was a waste of money, if it was to help you feel better, then it was not. CAM user: It was $40 a session, and the things I was taking all came to $80 worth of natural stuff... so to me that wasn t someone being over-ridiculous, or just give us your money. Nonuser: I wouldn t be bothered. I think it s a waste of money... all you re doing is shelling out money to them. A final difference between the groups involved a perceived relationship between CAM and allopathic medicine. CAM-users appeared to envisage the possibility of some integration between disciplines, albeit with CAM in a subsidiary role. I d never go to a naturopath on their own, I think they can work together with the oncologist, that s the ideal. A [doctor] friend... recommended [the naturopath].... He said give her a try and see how you go, which I did. Nonusers, however, implied that using CAM represented a challenge or affront to medical wisdom, negatively assessing this, and surmising that their doctors would perceive it similarly.

64 I don t know whether I d like to really try anything else. I m under doctor, and I wouldn t go against him sort of thing,... [Using CAM] makes me doctors look a bit of a joke,... they would never suggest it because, I shouldn t think they would because they d be dead against it probably. DISCUSSION In this study, CAM users and nonusers presented many different expectations and judgments of CAM and CAM users. Both groups appeared to consider that any benefits to be obtained from CAM required a belief in their efficacy, although nonusers claimed not to have this belief. This shared understanding draws upon a mind body discourse dominant within Western societies, wherein the mind is presumed able to will a change in the course of the disease in the body. 57 Featuring in medical and lay accounts of illness, this discourse also constitutes the individual as responsible for their health, implicitly holding patients responsible for poor outcomes following treatment. 31,58 Although this moral evaluation attaches to conventional medical treatments, it may be more salient for CAM which not only presuppose and espouse a mindbody connection but also define it as the foundation of any effect, and particularly for those CAM that have not been shown to have a definable physiologic mechanism, and thus may be more readily understood as dependent upon a belief or mind-body connection. In this context, some patients lack of faith in the efficacy of CAM, precisely where faith is believed crucial to its success, may account for their dismissal of CAM s relevance to their circumstances. Although scientific research demonstrating physiological effects of some CAM practices may work to challenge the notion that CAM efficacy is inseparably dependent upon patient belief, this study suggests that further understanding and discussion of the social and moral aspects of patients decisions to undertake CAM treatments is required in order to increase patients receptivity to CAM practices that may positively affect their quality of life even when approaching death. As reported elsewhere, 8,13,47,50 CAM users valued CAM for perceived physical, psychological, philosophical, and social gains. For some, decisions regarding CAM use were influenced by the positive or negative appraisal of others. Although CAM uptake is often deemed to reflect a Western societal emphasis on individual responsibility for health, 4,17,31,54 this research supports the findings of others that decisions ELIOTT ET AL. about treatment including both conventional, 59,60 and alternative treatments 7,51 53 are influenced by family members. If desired outcomes are absent or treatment difficult to sustain, this may have negative ramifications, particularly with regard to relationships between patients and others contributing to the decision making. 53 It is also disturbing that some CAM users attributed cessation of CAM to some lack in themselves, holding themselves morally deficient, even as they alluded to financial or practical obstacles many such therapies require significant outlay of time, energy, or money, 12,14 all of which may be limited in terminally ill patients. Ensuring medical guidance regarding the availability and suitability of CAM may reduce patients reliance upon the opinions of others who, while intimately concerned with patient well-being, may lack knowledge of what might be clinically useful. Money was seen as a barrier to use of CAM by both users and nonusers, concurring with observations that financial considerations might limit the uptake of potentially useful CAM therapies. 54 However, the conclusions drawn by participants regarding financial outlay were dependent upon the perceived value of CAM itself, indicating that, although cost was important, patients expectations and evaluation of CAM determined whether cost was worth it. In turn, this was associated for nonusers with negative moral judgments of CAM use and users, and, by implication, of CAM providers. This perception is not confined to this population, as some within the Australian medical profession have characterized some CAM providers as fraudulently exploiting those with incurable or fatal disease who... suspend their normal commonsense judgment because of the desperate situation in which they find themselves, 37 and some suburbanite Australians characterized some CAM providers as exploiting desperately ill persons. 50 In part, nonusers dismissal of CAM en masse may stem from an identification of CAM as a homogenous group, rather than as specific and different practices and products, some of which may be helpful in palliative care, improving symptom control and patient quality of life. Determining what patients identify as CAM practices and their perceptions toward these might encourage dialogue about CAM, and increase patient receptivity to beneficial CAM treatments. It has been noted that CAM use is correlated with distrust in science and technology. 17 This study suggests that this link may prompt individuals (not wishing to be seen to spurn medical efforts) to reject use of CAM. Similarly, although doctors may be less likely to recommend CAM when unfamiliar, 36 these

PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF (USING) CAM 65 results indicate that patients may avoid CAM for fear of offending their doctor. This may be somewhat justifiable given reports that some doctors do disapprove of and distrust CAM. 24,61 Finally, some nonusers appeared to associate CAM use with persons with particular demographic characteristics. Although some demographic characteristics are predictors of CAM use, the odds ratios for these predictors are generally less than two. 4,5 Nonetheless, where a patient does not identify themselves as belonging to the category of CAM users, they may be more likely to dismiss or overlook the possibilities that CAM may provide benefit to them. Nonusers (and ex-users who did not consider themselves to be CAM users) did not consider other benefits that CAM might provide, but devalued CAM for a perceived inability to provide a cure. However, although conventional medicine had not provided a cure for any of these patients it was not similarly devalued, indicating that different moral judgments attach to different medical systems. Although cure is a motivation for using CAM, it is not the only one. 12,13,20,47,54 The misperception that cure is the primary rationale for using CAM and attendant moral connotations may deter patients from using CAM from which they might benefit, or may prompt disappointment from CAM users when cure is not attained. We acknowledge that only palliative cancer patients were interviewed that may limit generalizability. However, we found consistent and important differences between CAM users and nonusers that may impact CAM use in this population identified as particularly likely to benefit from CAM use. Additionally, because we did not define CAM, it is likely that participants were talking about different CAM modalities. As it is probable that different treatments are differently morally evaluated by patients, further investigation into this matter is required. CONCLUSIONS Despite increased legitimation and medicalization of CAM, patients assess CAM differently from allopathic medicine, with different judgments (positive and negative) attributable to CAM use and CAM users. Some perceptions regarding CAM might limit the uptake of potentially useful CAM therapies and hinder moves to integration, including the views that CAM efficacy intrinsically requires faith, that CAM is solely for cure, that it is for specific types of people, or that it implies a lack of faith in the medical profession. In order to foster integrative medicine, so that patients can know about and access CAM therapies that may benefit them (particularly within oncology and palliative care), clinicians must both know about and encourage discussion of CAM in the clinical setting, eliciting and addressing specific misperceptions. However, confining such discussions to the biological sequelae of CAM use will do little to dispel evaluations predicated upon moral and social judgments. We recommend both clinical consideration and further analysis of the moral connotations of the choices to use (or not use) CAM. Without this, attempts to integrate CAM and conventional medicine will be hindered and some patients will not access CAM treatments that may be beneficial in symptom control thus improving their well-being at the end of life. REFERENCES 1. Barrett B: Alternative, complementary, and conventional medicine: Is integration upon us? J Altern Complement Med 2003;9:417 427. 2. Goldbeck-Wood S, Dorozynski A, Lie G, Zinn C, Josefson D, Ingram, M: Complementary medicine is booming world-wide. Br Med J 1996;313:131 133. 3. Cassileth BR, Chapman CC: Alternative and complementary cancer therapies. Cancer 1996;77:1026 1034. 4. Astin JA: Why patients use alternative medicine: Results of a national study. JAMA 1998;279:1548 1553. 5. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC: Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990 1997: Results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998;280:1569 1575. 6. MacLennan AH, Myers SP, Taylor AW: The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: Costs and beliefs in 2004. Med J Aust 2006; 184:27 31. 7. Caspi O, Koithan M, Criddle MW: Alternative medicine or Alternative patients: A qualitative study of patient-oriented decision-making processes with respect to complementary and alternative medicine. Med Decis Making 2004;24:64 79. 8. Ernst E, Filshie J, Hardy J: Evidence-based complementary medicine for palliative cancer care: Does it make sense? Palliat Med 2003;17:704 707. 9. Ernst E, Cassileth BR: The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer: A systematic review. Cancer 1998;93:777 782. 10. Sibbritt D, Adams J, Easthope G, Young A: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among elderly women who have cancer. Support Care Cancer 2003;11: 548 550. 11. Begbie SD, Kerestes ZL, Bell DR: Patterns of alternative medicine use by cancer patients. Med J Aust 1996;165: 545 548. 12. Miller M, Boyer MJ, Butow PN, Gattelari M, Dunn SM, Childs A: The use of unproven methods of treatment by

66 cancer patients. Frequency, expectations and cost. Support Care Cancer 1998.;6:337 347. 13. Correa-Velez I, Clavarino A, Barnett AG, Eastwood H: Use of complementary and alternative medicine and quality of life: Changes at the end of life. Palliat Med 2003;17:695 703. 14. Yates PM, Beadle G, Clavarino A, Najman JM, Thomson D, Williams G, Kenny L, Roberts SL, Mason B, Schlect D. Patients with terminal cancer who use alternative therapies: Their beliefs and practices. Sociol Health Illn 1993;15:199 216. 15. DiGianni LM, Garber JE, Winer EP: Complementary and alternative medicine use among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:34S 38S. 16. AMA Policy Statement on Complementary Medicine. www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/ween-6l74gc;2002 (Last accessed January 2006). 17. Coulter ID, Willis EM: The rise and rise of complementary and alternative medicine: A sociological perspective. Med J Aust 2004;180:587 589. 18. Tripathy D: Peer viewpoint: Commentary on Complementary therapies for cancer-related symptoms. J Support Oncol 2004;2:427 428. 19. Frohock FM: Moving lines and variable criteria: Differences/connections between allopathic and alternative medicine. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2002;3:214 232. 20. Tataryn DJ: Paradigms of health and disease: A framework for classifying and understanding complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2002;86: 877 892. 21. Cohen MM, Penman S, Pirotta MV, Da Costa C: The integration of complementary therapies in Australian general practice: Results of a national survey. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:995 1004. 22. Pirotta MV, Cohen MM, Kotsirilos V, Farish SJ: Complementary therapies: Have they become accepted in general practice? Med J Aust 2000;172:105 109. 23. Newell, S, Sanson-Fisher RW: Australian oncologists selfreported knowledge and attitudes about non-traditional therapies used by cancer patients. Med J Aust 2000:172: 110 113. 24. Cassileth BR: Unorthodox cancer medicine. CA Cancer Clin 1988;38:176 186. 25. Kimby CK, Launso L, Henningsen I, Langgaard H: Choice of unconventional treatment by patients with cancer. J Altern Complement Med 2003;9:549 561. 26. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Get the facts: What is Complementary and Alternative Medicine. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/ #sup2 (Last accessed June 2007). 27. Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg D: Varieties of healing. 1: Medical pluralism in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:189 195. 28. Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg D: Varieties of healing. 2: A taxonomy of unconventional healing practices. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:196 204. 29. Long AF: Outcome measurement in complementary and alternative medicine: Unpicking the effects. J Altern Complement Med 2002;6:777 786. ELIOTT ET AL. 30. Rhead JC: Guest editorial: The deeper significance of complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2003;4:455 457. 31. McClean S: The illness is part of the person : Discourses of blame, individual responsibility and individuation at a centre for spiritual healing in the North of England. Sociol Health Illn 2005;27:628 648. 32. Cohen MM: CAM practitioners and regular doctors: Is integration possible? Med J Aust 2004;180:645 646. 33. Deng G, Cassileth BR, Yeung KS: Complementary therapies for cancer-related symptoms. J Support Oncol 2004; 2:419 429. 34. Mansky PJ, Wallerstedt DB: Complementary medicine in palliative care and cancer symptom management. Cancer J 2006;12:425 431. 35. Robotin MC, Penman AG: Integrating complementary therapies into mainstream cancer care: Which way forward? Med J Aust 2006;185:377 379. 36. Owen DC, Lewith GT: Teaching integrated care: CAM familiarisation courses. Med J Aust 2004;181:276 278. 37. Dwyer JM: Good medicine and bad medicine: Science to promote the convergence of alternative and orthodox medicine. Med J Aust 2004;180:647 648. 38. Kerridge IH, McPhee JR: Ethical and legal issues at the interface of complementary and conventional medicine. Med J Aust 2004;181:164 166. 39. Parker MH: The regulation of complementary health: Sacrificing integrity? Med J Aust 2003;179:316 318. 40. Kellehear A. Complementary medicine: Is it more acceptable in palliative care practice? Med J Aust 2003;179: S46 S58. 41. Eastwood HL: Complementary therapies: The appeal to general practitioners. Med J Aust 2000;173:95 98. 42. Moura VL, Warber SL, James SA: CAM providers messages to conventional medicine: A qualitative study. Am J Med Qual 2002;17:10 14. 43. Ernst E: Complementary cancer treatments: Hope or hazard? Clin Oncol 1995;7:259 63. 44. Vitetta L, Sali A: Complementary medicine in palliative care. Aust Fam Physician 2006;35:783. 45. Weiger WA, Smith MMR, Boon H, Richardson MA, Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM: Advising patients who seek complementary and alternative medical therapies for cancer. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:889 903. 46. Boon H, Brown JB, Gavin A, Kennard MA, Stewart M: Breast cancer survivors perceptions of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM): Making the decision to use or not to use. Qual Health Res 1999;9:639 653. 47. Correa-Velez I, Clavarino A, Eastwood H: Surviving, relieving, repairing, and boosting up: Reasons for using complementary/alternative medicine among patients with advanced cancer: A thematic analysis. J Palliat Med 2005;8: 953 961. 48. Richardson MA, Sanders T, Palmer JL, Greisinger A, Singletary SE: Complementary/alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer center and the implications for oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2505 2514. 49. Sparber A. Bauer L, Curt G, Eisenberg D, Levin T, Parks S, Steinberg SM, Wootton J: Use of complementary med-

PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF (USING) CAM 67 icine by adult patients participating in cancer clinical trials. Oncol Nurs Forum 2000;27:623 630. 50. Conner LH: Relief, risk and renewal: Mixed therapy regimens in an Australian suburb. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:1695 1705. 51. D Crus A, Wilkinson JM: Reasons for choosing and complying with complementary health care: An in-house study on a South Australian clinic. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:1107 1112. 52. Kellehear A: Dying of Cancer: The Final Year of Life. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1990. 53. Ohlen J, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL, Brazier ASA: The influence of significant others in complementary and alternative medicine decisions by cancer patients. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:1625 1636. 54. Barrett B, Marchand L, Scheder J, Plane MB, Maberry R, Appelbaum D, Rakel D, Rabago D: Themes of holism, empowerment, access, and legitimacy define complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in relation to conventional biomedicine. J Altern Complement Med 2003;9: 937 947. 55. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psych 2006;3:77 101. 56. Kvale S: InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 1996. 57. Good MGD, Good BJ, Schaffer C, Lind SE: American oncology and the discourse on hope. Cult Med Psychiatry 1990;14:59 79. 58. McGrath P: The burden of the RA RA positive: Survivors and hospice patients reflections on maintaining a positive attitude to serious illness. Support Care Cancer 2004;12: 25 33. 59. Eliott JA, Olver IN: The implications of dying cancer patients talk on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and do-notresuscitate orders: A discursive analysis. Qual Health Res 2007;17:442 455. 60. Terry PB, Vettese M, Song J, Forman J, Haller KB, Miller DJ, Stallings R, Sulmasy DP: End-of-life decision making: When patients and surrogates disagree. J Clin Ethics 1999;10:286 293. 61. Tovey P: Contingent legitimacy: UK alternative practitioners and inter-sectoral acceptance. Soc Sci Med 1997;45: 1129 1133. Address reprint requests to: Jaklin A. Eliott, B.A. (Hons) The Cancer Council Australia Hughes Building, Room 314 School of Psychology University of Adelaide Adelaide, South Australia 5005 Australia E-mail: Jaklin.Eliott@adelaide.edu.au