The problematic nature of conflating use and advocacy in CAM integration: Complexity and differentiation in UK cancer patients' views.

The integration of complementary and alternative medicine into cancer care is widely debated. Advocates of integration frequently cite the popularity of such therapies amongst patients in support of their case. However, little specific empirical attention has been given to how integration is actually regarded by these patients. Based on semi structured interviews with 80 cancer patients in the UK, this article examines the assumption of a link between use and support for integration. On the basis of this study we argue that: 1. A characterisation of unequivocal cancer patients' support for integration (even amongst those who use CAM) is an over-simplification and distortion of the situation 2. It is inappropriate to conflate 'use' with 'advocacy' 3. Patients' engagement with the idea of integration is complex and multi-layered; and 4. This complexity can be explicated by looking at key dimensions of an integrative process: evidence and risk, cost, and provider legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]