Back to Authors

Lohiya, Ayush

0000-0003-1429-7821

Mayo Clinic

Division of Public Health Kalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute Lucknow India

Citations 1

Prevalence and Perception of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Childhood Cancer Patients: A Mixed‐Methods Study
Ganguly, Shuvadeep , Singh, Manraj , Sasi, Archana , Singh, Ritika , Verma, Vasudha , Sharma, Shubhangi , Das, Anubhav, Pushpam, Deepam , Bakhshi, Sameer , Sra, Manraj Singh , Pushpam, Deepam , Bakhshi, Sameer , Verma, Vasudha, Lohiya, Ayush , Das, Anubhav

Pediatric Blood & Cancer | August 13, 2025 | Volume: 72 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/pbc.31975 Get It

ABSTRACTBackgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage among childhood cancer patients remains understudied. Factors associated with CAM use and motivations of caregivers for using CAM remain poorly understood.MethodsThis cross‐sectional mixed‐methods study was conducted among caregivers of patients aged ≤18 years with confirmed cancer diagnoses. Caregivers were interviewed regarding CAM use, reasons for using/non‐using CAM, and views on CAM. Logistic regression identified factors associated with CAM use, whereas qualitative interviews explored motivations and barriers. The impact of CAM usage on 2‐year overall survival was explored.ResultsOut of 450 respondents, CAM usage was reported by 35.78% (n = 161), with home remedies (28.44%, n = 128) and AYUSH (Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Yoga, Homeopathy) therapies (13.56%, n = 61) being most common. CAM use was associated with symptom duration ≥30 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.09–2.67; p = 0·019) and hematological malignancies (aOR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.33–3.17; p = 0·001). Major motivations for CAM use included belief in effectiveness (44.72%, n = 72) and family recommendations (34.16%, n = 55). Qualitative interviews highlighted cost, accessibility issues, and diagnostic delays as key drivers of CAM adoption. The 2‐year survival probabilities of CAM users and nonusers were comparable (0.88 [95% CI: 0.83–0.94] vs. 0.87 [95% CI: 0.83–0.92], log‐rank p = 0.75).ConclusionCAM is frequently used by pediatric cancer patients, driven by caregiver beliefs, family influence, and access barriers. Addressing caregiver practices and integrating CAM discussions into care may enhance supportive strategies without impacting survival outcomes.