Background: In recent years, use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased with growing incidence of chronic and incurable diseases. Better understanding regarding benefits and mechanisms of CAM use in cancer is desired. Objective: 1) to explore perceptions and beliefs of alternative therapists concerning practice of CAM. 2) To investigate benefits and mechanism of practicing CAM in cancer by them. 3) To suggest holistic approach of cancer management by health care providers. Methodology: Qualitative survey was conducted among selected alternative therapists practicing Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in different fields from different states of the country. Their opinions, perceptions and beliefs regarding CAM use were explored by conducting personal interviews using semi-structured interview schedules. Study variables included knowledge, perceptions, and perceived benefits of practicing CAM in cancer. Results: Among 244 alternative therapists, awareness of Ayurvedic treatment was found 87.7% followed by 71.3% awareness of Homeopathy. Awareness of spiritual therapy/ faith healing was among 152 (62.3%) therapists. The most common point in favor of CAM was having no side effects (77.5%) followed by close to nature (66.0%). The most common argument in favor of usefulness in CAM in cancer was observed that CAM improves/builds the immune of the patient (25.0%) followed by that CAM therapies subside the side effects without any side effect (14.3%). There were 161(66.0%) respondents who were of the opinion that CAM therapies should be practiced along with allopathic medicines and 131(53.7%) were of the opinion that CAM therapies should be practiced with dietary advice and Yoga. High toxicity of traditional/conventional therapies came out to be the most common shortcoming of those therapies, favoring use of alternative therapies among cancer patients. There were 216(88.5%) respondents who were in favour of scientific evaluation of CAM therapies. Conclusions and Suggestions: The study reported large gaps existing in faith and practices of CAM even among alternative therapists except for Tibetan System of Medicine. The study provided perceived supportive evidence in favor of CAM in general based on opinions of alternative therapists. Short comings of conventional treatment resulted in popularity of CAM use as reported by alternative therapists, but not so strong evidence of role of CAM for treating cancer patients. Alternative therapists favored using CAM with allopathic treatment suggesting thereby a holistic approach of cancer management. There is a need of continuous scientific evaluation of beneficial effects of CAM therapies. Further in depth epidemiological studies should be conducted for better understanding the role of CAM in cancer.
