Patients' motives for choosing a physician: comparison between conventional and complementary medicine in Swiss primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The study is part of a nationwide evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in primary care in Switzerland. The Objective was to identify patients' expectations and reasons governing the choice of complementary medicine compared with conventional primary care (CONV).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The data were derived from the PEK study (Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin), which was conducted in 2002–2003 with 7879 adult patients and parents of 1291 underage patients, seeking either complementary (CAM) or conventional (CONV) primary care. The study was performed as a cross-sectional survey. The respondents were asked to document their (or their children's) self-perceived health status, reasons governing their choice, and treatment expectations. Physicians were practicing conventional medicine and/or complementary methods (homeopathy, anthroposophic medicine, neural therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine). Reasons governing the choice of physician were evaluated on the basis of a three-part classification (physician-related, procedure-related, and pragmatic/other reasons)</p> <p>Results and Discussion</p> <p>Patients seeing CAM physicians tend to be younger and more often female. CAM patients referred to procedure-related reasons more frequently, whereas pragmatic reasons dominated among CONV patients. CAM respondents expected fewer adverse side effects compared to conventional care patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of alternative medicine users appear to have chosen CAM mainly because they wish to undergo a certain procedure; additional reasons include desire for more comprehensive treatment, and expectation of fewer side-effects.</p

Biofield Therapies: Helpful or Full of Hype? A Best Evidence Synthesis

Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy. This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations. We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations. Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients. There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed

The problem with women? : challenges posed by gender for career guidance practice

Institutionalised discrimination continues to perpetuate deep rooted social divisions, with gender inequality persisting as a pervasive feature of labour markets across the world. Despite the depth and breadth of gender inequality, there is limited acknowledgement in career theory that the career support needs of women are distinctive. A qualitative international comparative study into the career trajectories of older women (aged 45–65) has been conducted across six countries (Australia, Argentina, Germany, Italy, England and South Africa). The results provide an international understanding of women’s careers and offer insight into career theory and practice for women that are culturally relevant