目的:(1)描述和比较使用补充卫生方法的患病率,专注于身心实践,以及在癌症幸存者中使用的原因,和(2)检查与最近和非最近诊断癌症的人相比,与以前没有癌症诊断的人的使用相关的特征。
方法:使用2022年美国国家健康访谈调查的数据,患病率估计值是使用任何补充健康方法得出的,按类别(操纵性身体型[脊医,针灸,按摩],创意[音乐疗法,艺术治疗],和身心[冥想,引导图像,瑜伽]),和使用的原因。回归模型确定了所有参与者之间和癌症诊断亚组内的使用相关性。
结果:在26,523名成年参与者中,使用任何补充方法的总体患病率在近期癌症患者中相似(40.17%),非近期癌症(37.75%),无癌症诊断(37.93%)。然而,与校正模型中没有癌症病史的患者相比,近期(OR=1.37)和相对长期(OR=1.14)癌症幸存者的使用几率更高(均P<0.05).在癌症幸存者中,身心方法主要用于一般健康目的,而操纵性方法用于一般健康和疼痛管理。女性性别,年龄较小,高等教育和收入是与使用互补方法相关的主要变量之一。
结论:我们介绍了使用互补方法的重要概况,特别是身心实践,在美国成年癌症幸存者中。获得这些疗法的不平等可能存在,因为在社会经济条件较高的人群中,使用量仍然最高。
结论:鉴于癌症幸存者中补充方法的患病率和潜在益处,有必要更好地了解它们的有效性,最佳使用,并融入癌症护理。需要进一步的研究来了解和解决一些癌症幸存者中可能存在的访问障碍。
OBJECTIVE: To (1) describe and compare the prevalence of using of complementary health approaches, focusing on mind and body practices, and reasons for use among cancer survivors, and (2) examine characteristics associated with use among those with a recent and non-recent diagnosis of cancer compared to those without a previous cancer diagnosis.
METHODS: Using data from the 2022 US National Health Interview Survey, prevalence estimates were derived for using any complementary health approach, by category (manipulative body-based [chiropractor, acupuncture, massage], creative [music therapy, art therapy], and mind-body [meditation, guided imagery, yoga]), and reasons for use. Regression models identified correlates of use among all participants and within cancer diagnosis subgroups.
RESULTS: Among 26,523 adult participants, overall prevalence of using any complementary approach was similar amongst individuals with recent cancer (40.17%), non-recent cancer (37.75%), and no cancer diagnosis (37.93%). However, odds of use were higher amongst recent (OR = 1.37) and relatively long term (OR = 1.14) cancer survivors compared to those without a history of cancer in adjusted models (both p < 0.05). In cancer survivors, mind-body approaches were mostly used for general health purposes, whereas manipulative approaches were used for general health and pain management. Female sex, younger age, higher education and income were among the prominent variables associated with using complementary approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: We present an important snapshot of the landscape of using complementary approaches, specifically mind and body practices, in adult cancer survivors in the US. Inequalities in access to these therapies may exist, as use remains highest amongst those with higher socioeconomic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the prevalence and potential benefits of complementary approaches among cancer survivors, there is a need to better understand their effectiveness, optimal use, and integration into cancer care. Further research is needed to understand and address access barriers that might exist amongst some cancer survivors.