RESUMO
Olfactory obsessions (OOs) are rarely described in the medical literature. The features of OOs appear consistent with characteristics of a typical obsession, but since they do not involve the realm of thought, it is questionable to term them obsessions per se. Olfactory Reference Syndrome (ORS) presents OOs inconsistently and is a distinctive diagnostic category related to OCD. Therefore, the primary objectives of our study were not only to assess the prevalence of OOs in OCD patients, but also to demonstrate their phenomenological consistency with other OCD symptoms. The study group consisted of 75 patients already diagnosed and treated for OCD. Hence, a comparison was made between OCD patients with and without OOs in terms of: symptom severity, level of insight and comorbidities. Olfactory obsessions (OOs) were found in 21.33% (n = 16). OOs induced compulsive behavior in more than 93% of subjects. The presence of OOs did not significantly differentiate the studied groups in terms of OCD severity (p = 0.876), level of insight (p = 0.680), depression (p = 0.746), mania (p = 0.525) and OCDP traits (p = 0.624). However, a comparison of the two groups showed that OOs patients presented higher levels of hostility (p = 0.036), cognitive impulsivity (p = 0.039), magic-type obsession (75% vs. 35.59%), and contamination obsession (87.50% vs. 67.80%). Conclusions: OOs frequently occur in the course of OCD, and their phenomenology is typical of this disorder. OOs are not a symptom of thought content disorders and are sensory in nature, which is not included in the definition of obsession. The presence of OOs in OCD provokes hostility and cognitive impulsivity. It can be assumed that the Olfactory Obsessions Questionnaire accurately identifies olfactory obsessions.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common amongst cancer patients. The aim of the study was to investigate the use of CAM, beliefs about CAM and the purpose of using it amongst Polish cancer patients. METHODS: The study included 864 cancer patients (median 63 years old), who were individually interviewed. The questionnaire was designed specifically for this study. RESULTS: Amongst 732 patients who declared that they heard about CAM, 342 patients (46.7%) had used CAM; 91% of these patients had used it as a complementary therapy and 9% had used it as an alternative therapy. Patients younger in age, highly educated, professionally active, with longer medical history, and at more advanced cancer stages have, statistically, used CAM more often; 66% of participants could not state what the health effect of CAM is. Patients received information about CAM from the internet, friends, family and other patients. Only 18% of patients discussed using CAM with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: CAM was popular amongst Polish cancer patients, especially in younger, educated and professionally active patients with longer cancer history at advanced stage. Patients used CAM as a complementary therapy for strengthening immune system, improving morphological and biochemical test parameters, reducing the side effects of conventional therapy and improving their well-being.
