RESUMEN

PURPOSE: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: 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.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess existing reported human trials of Withania somnifera (WS; common name, ashwagandha) for the treatment of anxiety. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature, with searches conducted in PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Google Scholar by a medical librarian. Additionally, the reference lists of studies identified in these databases were searched by a research assistant, and queries were conducted in the AYUSH Research Portal. Search terms included "ashwagandha," "Withania somnifera," and terms related to anxiety and stress. Inclusion criteria were human randomized controlled trials with a treatment arm that included WS as a remedy for anxiety or stress. The study team members applied inclusion criteria while screening the records by abstract review. INTERVENTION: Treatment with any regimen of WS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and results of studies identified in the review. RESULTS: Sixty-two abstracts were screened; five human trials met inclusion criteria. Three studies compared several dosage levels of WS extract with placebos using versions of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, with two demonstrating significant benefit of WS versus placebo, and the third demonstrating beneficial effects that approached but did not achieve significance (p=0.05). A fourth study compared naturopathic care with WS versus psychotherapy by using Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) scores as an outcome; BAI scores decreased by 56.5% in the WS group and decreased 30.5% for psychotherapy (p<0.0001). A fifth study measured changes in Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) scores in WS group versus placebo; there was a 44.0% reduction in PSS scores in the WS group and a 5.5% reduction in the placebo group (p<0.0001). All studies exhibited unclear or high risk of bias, and heterogenous design and reporting prevented the possibility of meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: All five studies concluded that WS intervention resulted in greater score improvements (significantly in most cases) than placebo in outcomes on anxiety or stress scales. Current evidence should be received with caution because of an assortment of study methods and cases of potential bias.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Physicians play an important role in smoking cessation, especially discussing medications. This study evaluates physician characteristics associated with higher rates of discussion of smoking cessation medications. 336 primary-care physicians in New Jersey completed a cross-sectional, self-administered, mail survey including physician demographics, practice type, previous training and confidence in treating tobacco dependence, awareness of guidelines, and perceived effectiveness of treatments. Two-thirds of respondents felt confident in using cessation medications despite only 24% having previous training and only 13% having read or implemented practice guidelines. After controlling for other variables, female physicians were more likely to discuss medications compared with males (adjusted odds ratio(AOR) 2.2; 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.0-4.6); physicians who were confident were more likely to discuss (AOR 3.0;95% CI 1.7-5.3); and physicians in private practices (solo, group, or multispecialty) were more likely to discuss than those employed by an agency (hospital, state, or federal) (AOR 3.1;95% CI 1.4-6.8). Most physicians in this sample reported routinely discussing cessation medications, with female physicians, those feeling confident, and those in private practices doing so more frequently. Considering limited resources and opportunities to access physicians, interventions to increase discussion of effective cessation treatments could be targeted to specific physician groups.

Asunto(s)