Complementary and alternative medicine: attitudes, knowledge and use among surgeons and anaesthesiologists in Hungary

BACKGROUND: Despite their worldwide popularity the question of using non-conventional treatments is a source of controversy among medical professionals. Although these methods may have potential benefits it presents a problem when patients use non-conventional treatments in the perioperative period without informing their attending physician about it and this may cause adverse events and complications. To prevent this, physicians need to have a profound knowledge about non-conventional treatments. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among surgeons and anaesthesiologists working in Hungarian university clinics and in selected city or county hospitals. Questionnaires were distributed by post, online or in person. Altogether 258 questionnaires were received from 22 clinical and hospital departments. RESULTS: Anaesthesiologists and surgeons use reflexology, Traditional Chinese Medicine, herbal medicine and manual therapy most frequently in their clinical practice. Traditional Chinese Medicine was considered to be the most scientifically sound method, while homeopathy was perceived as the least well-grounded method. Neural therapy was the least well-known method among our subjects. Among the subjects of our survey only 3.1 % of perioperative care physicians had some qualifications in non-conventional medicine, 12.4 % considered themselves to be well-informed in this topic and 48.4 % would like to study some complementary method. Women were significantly more interested in alternative treatments than men, p = 0.001427; OR: 2.2765. Anaesthesiologists would be significantly more willing to learn non-conventional methods than surgeons. 86.4 % of the participants thought that non-conventional treatments should be evaluated from the point of view of evidence. Both surgeons and anaesthesiologists accept the application of integrative medicine and they also approve of the idea of teaching these methods at universities. CONCLUSIONS: According to perioperative care physicians, non-conventional methods should be evaluated based on evidence. They also expressed a willingness to learn about those treatments that meet the criteria of evidence and apply these in their clinical practice

Complementary and alternative medicine provision in Europe - first results approaching reality in an unclear field of practices

Background: The demand for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment in the European Union (EU) has led to an increase in the various CAM interventions available to the public. Our aim was to describe the CAM services available from both registered medical practitioners and registered non-medical practitioners.Methods: Our literature search comprised a PubMed search of any scientific publications, secondary references and so-called grey literature, a search of government websites and websites of CAM organisations to collect data in a systematic manner, and personal communications, e.g., via e-mail contact. Due to the different reliability of data sources, a classification was developed and implemented. This weighted database was condensed into tables and maps to display the provision of CAM disciplines by country, showing the distribution of CAM providers across countries. Results: Approximately 305,000 registered CAM providers can be identified in the EU (?160,000 non-medical and ?145,000 medical practitioners). Acupuncture (n = 96,380) is the most available therapeutic method for both medical (80,000) and non-medical (16,380) practitioners, followed by homeopathy (45,000 medical and 5,800 non-medical practitioners). Herbal medicine (29,000 practitioners) and reflexology (24,600 practitioners) are mainly provided by non-medical practitioners. Naturopathy (22,300) is dominated by 15,000 (mostly German) doctors. Anthroposophic medicine (4,500) and neural therapy (1,500) are practised by doctors only.Conclusion: CAM provision in the EU is maintained by approximately 305,000 registered medical doctors and non-medical practitioners, with a huge variability in its national regulatory management, which makes any direct comparison across the EU almost impossible. Harmonisation of legal status, teaching and certification of expertise for therapists would be of enormous value and should be developed