Kronik Akciğer Hastalığına Sahip Hastalar Arasında Tamamlayıcı ve Alternatif Tıp Kullanımı

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, akciğer kanseri ve kronik obstrüktif akciğer hastalığı (KOAH) gibi kronik akciğer hastalığı olan hastalarda tamamlayıcı ve alternatif tıp (TAT) kullanımıyla ilgili davranışları ve bunu etkileyen etmenleri araştırmaktır. Materiyal ve Metot: Çalışmaya akciğer kanseri ve KOAH'lı olmak üzere toplam 60 hasta alındı. Demografik ve klinik özelliklere yönelik bilgi formu, Durumluk-Sürekli Kaygı Envanteri (STAI) ve Eysenck Kişilik Anketi Gözden Geçirilmiş/Kısaltılmış Formu (EKA-GGK) kullanılarak veriler toplandı. Bulgular: En sık kullanılan TAT yöntemi fitoterapi ve apiterapinin %48,3 (n=29) birlikte kullanımıydı. TAT yöntemi kullananların %48,8'inin (n=22) ayda en az bir kez kullanım öyküsü vardı. TAT kullanımının en sık nedeni öksürüktü. TAT kullanım kararı ile demografik özellikler, hastalık tipi, STAI ve EKA-GGK ölçek bağımsız değişkenleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmadı. Öte yandan, EKA-GGK psikotisizm alt ölçeğinin TAT kullanımından fayda görme inancında anlamlı ve bağımsız bir belirteç olduğu görüldü (β=0.354, p=0.029). Sonuç: Çalışmamızda fitoterapi ve apiterapinin birlikte kullanımının, en sık kullanılan TAT yöntemi olduğu görüldü. TAT kullanımından fayda görme inancında psikotisizm kişilik özelliğinin belirleyici bir etmen olabileceği anlaşılmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kronik hastalık
• fitoterapi
• akciğer kanseri
• tamamlayıcı tedaviler
• alternatif tıp

The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Among Patients with Chronic Lung Disease

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the behaviors related to and the factors affecting complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in patients with chronic lung diseases, such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Material and Method: A total of 60 patients with lung cancer and COPD were enrolled in the study. The data were collected by a form of demographic and clinical characteristics, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated Form (EPQR-A). Results: The most commonly used CAM method was the combination of phytotherapy and apitherapy, accounting for 48.3% (n=29) of the patients. 48.8% (n=22), to whom the CAM method was administered, used the combination at least once a month. The most common cause for the use of CAM method was cough. No statistically significant relationship was observed between the dependent variable – the decision of CAM use – and the independent variables sociodemographic characteristics, disease type, and the scores from STAI and EPQR-A. On the other hand, the EPQR-A psychoticism subscale was found to be a significant and independent predictor of the CAM users’ views of benefit (β=0.354, p=0.029). Conclusion: Our study suggests that the most commonly used CAM method was the combination of phytotherapy and apitherapy. It was understood that psychoticism, one of the personality traits, may be a significant factor affecting the CAM users’ views of benefit.

Keywords

• chronic disease
• phytotherapy
• lung cancer
• complementary therapies
• alternative medicine

References

1. 1. Harris PE, Cooper KL, Relton C, Thomas KJ. Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by the general population: a systematic review and update. Int J Clin Pract 2012;66(10):924-39.
2. 2. Fischer FH, Lewith G, Witt CM, Linde K, von Ammon K, Cardini F et al. High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research. BMC Complement Altern Med 2014; 14:46.
3. 3. Şahin ZA, Şahin M. The view of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Eastern Turkey. African J Tradit Complement Altern Med 2013;10(4):116-21.
4. 4. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(2):69-90.
5. 5. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, Harewood R, Spika D, Wang X-S et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015;385(9972):977-1010.
6. 6. Türkiye Kanser İstatistikleri. 2014 Yılı Türkiye Kanser İstatistikleri; https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanser-istatistikleri/yillar/2014-yili-turkiye-kanser-istatistikleri.html [accessed 17.06.19].
7. 7. Vestbo J, Hurd SS, Agustí AG, Jones PW, Vogelmeier C, Anzueto A et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;187(4):347-65.
8. 8. Moy ML, Teylan M, Danilack VA, Gagnon DR, Garshick E. An Index of Daily Step Count and Systemic Inflammation Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11(2):149-57.

9. 9. Pauwels RA, Buist AS, Calverley PMA, Jenkins CR, Hurd SS. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163(5):1256-76.
10. 10. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. JAMA1998;280(18):1569.
11. 11. Bücker B, Groenewold M, Schoefer Y, Schäfer T. The use of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) in 1001 German adults: results of a population-based telephone survey. Gesundheitswesen 2008;70(8-9):e29-36.
12. 12. Bodeker G, Ong CK, Grundy C, Burford G, Shein K. WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Text and Map Volumes. Kobe: World Health Organization, the WHO Centre for Health Development; Pck edition, 2005.
13. 13. Frass M, Strassl RP, Friehs H, Müllner M, Kundi M, Kaye AD et al. Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: A systematic review. Ochsner Journal 2012;12(1):45-56.
14. 14. Özçelik G, Toprak D. Bitkisel tedavi neden tercih ediliyor? Ankara Med J 2015;15(2):48-58.
15. 15. Tas F, Ustuner Z, Can G, Eralp Y, Camlica H, Basaran M et al. The prevalence and determinants of the use of complementary and alternative medicine in adult Turkish cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2005;44(2):161-7.
16. 16. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; December 2008.
17. 17. Spielberger CD. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
18. 18. Öner N, Le Compte A. Durumluk-Sürekli Kaygı Envanteri El Kitabı. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları; 1983:1-26.
19. 19. Francis LJ, Brown LB, Philipchalk R. The development of an abbreviated form of the revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Epqr-A): Its use among students. Personality and Individual Differences1992;13(4):443-9.
20. 20. Karancı AN, Dirik G, Yorulmaz O. Turkish Adaptation of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Abbreviated. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry 2007;18(3):254-61.
21. 21. Çakmak S, Nural N. Kronik hastalıklarda tamamlayıcı ve alternatif tedavi uygulamaları. Turkiye Klinikleri J Intern Med Nurs-Special Topics 2017;3(2):57-64.
22. 22. Molassiotis A, Panteli V, Patiraki E, Ozden G, Platin N, Madsen E, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use in lung cancer patients in eight European countries. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2006;12(1):34-9.
23. 23. Baron SE, Goodwin RG, Nicolau N, Blackford S, Goulden V. Use of complementary medicine among outpatients with dermatologic conditions within Yorkshire and South Wales, United Kingdom. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;52(4):589-94.
24. 24. Akinci AC, Zengin N, Yildiz H, Sener E, Gunaydin B. The complementary and alternative medicine use among asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in the southern region of Turkey. Int J Nurs Pract 2011;17(6):571-82.
25. 25. Sidora-Arcoleo K, Yoos HL, Kitzman H, Mcmullen A, Anson E. Don’t ask, don’t tell: parental nondisclosure of complementary and alternative medicine and over-the-counter medication use in children’s asthma management. J Pediatr Health Care 2008;22(4):221-9.
26. 26. Sirois FM, Gick ML. An investigation of the health beliefs and motivations of complementary medicine clients. Soc Sci Med2002;55(6):1025-37.
27. 27. Wagner PJ, Jester D, LeClair B, Taylor AT, Woodward L, Lambert J. Taking the edge off: why patients choose St. John’s Wort. J Fam Pract 1999;48(8):615-9.
28. 28. Durusoy Ç, Güleç AT, Durukan E, Bakar C. Dermatoloji polikliniğine başvuran akne vulgaris ve melasma hastalarında tamamlayıcı ve alternatif tıp kullanımı: anket çalışması. Dermatol 2010;4:14-7.
29. 29. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Van Rompay MI, Kaptchuk TJ, Wilkey SA, Appel S et al. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both: results from a national survey. Ann Intern Med 2001;135(5):344.
30. 30. Palinkas LA, Kabongo ML. The use of complementary and alternative medicine by primary care patients. A Surf*Net Study. J Fam Pract2000; 49(12):1121-30.
31. 31. Begbie SD, Kerestes ZL, Bell DR. Patterns of alternative medicine use by cancer patients. Med J Aust1996; 165(10):545-8.
32. 32. Owens JE, Taylor AG, Degood D. Complementary and alternative medicine and psychologic factors: Toward an individual differences model of complementary and alternative medicine use and outcomes. J Altern Complement Med 1999;5(6):529-41.
33. 33. Honda K, Jacobson JS. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among United States adults: The influences of personality, coping strategies, and social support. Prev Med (Baltim)2005; 40(1):46-53.
34. 34. Bech P. How to measure the personality. Personality and Disease, Christoffer Johansen (Ed.), London: Academic Press, 2018, pp:17-32.
35. 35. Ashton MC. Personality Disorders. Individual Differences and Personality, Michael C.Ashton (Ed.), Third Edition, London: Academic Press, 2018, Pages 179-97.
36. 36. Knežević G,Lazarević L.B, Purić D,Bosnjak M, Teovanović P, Petrović Bet al.Does Eysenck's personality model capture psychosis-proneness? Asystematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences.2019;143:155-164.