Differences Between Omnivores and Vegetarians in Personality Profiles, Values, and Empathy: A Systematic Review

Numerous medical studies have documented vegetarian diets as having various health benefits. Studies have also compared vegetarians with other dietary groups from a socio-psychological perspective. The objective of this review is to investigate the differences between vegetarians and omnivores in terms of their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A search was conducted across three electronic databases. Non-randomized, observational, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were eligible. Outcomes provided information about the differences between the above-mentioned dietary groups regarding their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A shortened version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias for the included studies. Of the 2,513 different studies found, 25 (total number of participants n = 23,589) were ultimately included. These studies indicate that vegetarians significantly differ from omnivores in their personalities, values, and ability to be empathetic. Omnivorism is associated with an increased orientation toward social dominance, greater right-wing authoritarianism, and, in line with this, a stronger tendency to be prejudiced. Vegetarianism is associated with greater openness and empathy. The values of vegetarians are based more on universalism, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, whereas the values of omnivores are based more on the idea of power. To answer a narrowly defined and clear question, issues such as animal ethics, animal rights, and environmental protection are not considered in this review. The findings of this review, showing marked differences in personality correlating to the choice of diet and the increasing influence of plant-based diets on a global level, indicate that further studies about vegetarianism are warranted

Ayurvedic vs. Conventional Nutritional Therapy Including Low-FODMAP Diet for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome — A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aims: To compare the effects of Ayurvedic and conventional nutritional therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: Sixty-nine patients with IBS were randomized to Ayurvedic (n = 35) or conventional nutritional therapy according to the recommendations of the German Nutrition Society including the low-FODMAP diet (n = 34). Study visits took place at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS) after 3 months; secondary outcomes included stress (CPSS), anxiety and depression (HADS), well-being (WHO-5) and IBS-specific quality of life (IBS-QOL). A repeated measures general linear model (GLM) for intent-to-treat-analyses was applied in this explorative study. Results: After 3 months, estimated marginal means for IBS-SSS reductions were 123.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 92.8-154.9; p < 0.001] in the Ayurvedic and 72.7 (95% CI = 38.8-106.7; p < 0.001) in the conventional group. The IBS-SSS reduction was significantly higher in the Ayurveda group compared to the conventional therapy group (estimated marginal mean = 51.1; 95% CI = 3.8-98.5; p = 0.035) and clinically meaningful. Sixty-eight percentage of the variance in IBS-SSS reduction after 3 months can be explained by treatment, 6.5% by patients' expectations for their therapies and 23.4% by IBS-SSS at pre-intervention. Both therapies are equivalent in their contribution to the outcome variance. The higher the IBS-SSS score at pre-intervention and the larger the patients' expectations, the greater the IBS-SSS reduction. There were no significant group differences in any secondary outcome measures. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Patients with IBS seem to benefit significantly from Ayurvedic or conventional nutritional therapy. The results warrant further studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger sample sizes

Consultations with complementary and alternative medicine practitioners amongst wider care options for back pain: a study of a nationally representative sample of 1,310 Australian women aged 60–65 years

Back pain is a significant health service issue in Australia and internationally. Back pain sufferers can draw upon a range of health care providers including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners. Women are higher users of health services than men and tend to use CAM frequently for musculoskeletal conditions. However, there remain important gaps in our understanding of women's consultation patterns with CAM practitioners for back pain. The objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of use and characteristics of women who use CAM practitioners for back pain. The method used was a survey of a nationally representative sample of women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women consulted a massage therapist (44.1 %, n = 578) and a chiropractor (37.3 %, n = 488) more than other CAM practitioners for their back pain. Consultations with a chiropractor for back pain were lower for women who consulted a General Practitioner (GP) (OR, 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41, 0.76) or a physiotherapist (OR, 0.53; 95 % CI 0.39, 0.72) than for those who did not consult a GP or a physiotherapist. CAM practitioner consultations for back pain were greater for women who visited a pharmacist (OR, 1.99; 95 % CI 1.23, 3.32) than for women who did not visit a pharmacist. There is substantial use of CAM practitioners alongside conventional practitioners amongst women for back pain, and there is a need to provide detailed examination of the communication between patients and their providers as well as across the diverse range of health professionals involved in back pain care

The use of complementary and alternative medicine for back pain by women aged 60-65 years across Australia : a health services research study

University of Technology Sydney. Faculty of Health.Background: Back pain is the most prevalent of musculoskeletal conditions internationally and in Australia with women reporting back pain more frequently than men. Women are higher users of health services than men more generally and tend to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) frequently for musculoskeletal conditions. Despite debate around evidence for CAM regarding back pain, CAM is commonly used by back pain sufferers. However, there remain important gaps in our understanding of women’s consultation patterns with CAM practitioners and self-prescribed CAM treatments for back pain. Methods: The study utilised a Health Services Research (HSR) approach. The sample for the research reported in this thesis was obtained from a sub-study of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). In the baseline ALSWH survey (year 1996), women were randomly selected for the study in three age groups, 18-23 years (young cohort), 45-50 years (mid-age cohort) and 70-75 years (older cohort) from the national Medicare database. For the sub-study that this thesis is based on, the participants were chosen from the mid-age cohort of women, who had indicated in the sixth ALSWH survey (2010) that they had experienced back pain. Of the 10,011 women who responded to the sixth ALSWH survey, 1,851 indicated they had experienced back pain and these women were mailed a 50-item sub-study questionnaire. Subsequently 1,620 women were deemed eligible for participating in the sub-study as they confirmed that they had back pain at the time of the sub-study (2011) and 1,310 (80.9%) women returned the completed questionnaire. Alongside the women’s demographics, the survey explored the women’s patterns of consultations with CAM practitioners and self-prescribed CAM treatments, the women’s attitudes toward CAM, the influence of different information sources and communication on the women’s decision-making regarding their use of CAM for back pain. The analyses included Pearson chi-square tests to compare categorical variables and t-tests to compare continuous and categorical variables. Multiple logistic regression models, with backwards-stepwise regression, were employed to determine the significant factors associated with CAM use. Results: A significant number of women consulted a CAM practitioner (76.4%, n=1,001) and/or self-prescribed CAM treatment (75.2%, n=985) for back pain in the previous twelve months. The most commonly consulted CAM practitioners were massage therapist, chiropractor, acupuncturist, herbalist/naturopath, meditation/yoga practitioner, osteopath and the most commonly self-prescribed CAM treatments were supplements, vitamins/minerals, yoga/meditation, herbal medicines and aromatherapy oils. Women’s attitudes toward CAM as providing greater control over their body/health, perceiving CAM as natural or promoting a holistic approach to health had a significant influence on their choice of CAM for back pain. Women’s decisions on CAM use for back pain were influenced by professional information sources (e.g., doctors; 43%, CAM practitioner; 30%, pharmacist; 20%) as well as nonprofessional information sources (e.g., friends/colleagues; 39%, family/relatives; 36%, Internet; 6%). Information sources used by women for their decision-making on CAM use differed according to their symptoms. While non-professional information sources positively influenced women in their decision to use CAM for a range of back pain related symptoms, doctors and allied health workers negatively influenced women in their decision to consult a CAM practitioner for a range of back pain related symptoms. Of the women who used CAM for their back pain, 20% consulted their GP prior to using CAM and 34% always informed their GP following CAM use. Conclusion: This study gives insights for health care providers and policy makers on the range of CAM treatments used by back pain sufferers. Conventional medical practitioners and CAM practitioners should be aware of back pain sufferers’ decision-making regarding a range of CAM treatments and be prepared to communicate with patients on safe and effective CAM treatments for back pain. The study highlights a need for further research to examine this topic more closely, and to develop policy in relation to CAM use in back pain

Reliability of ayurvedic diagnosis for knee osteoarthritis patients: a nested diagnostic study within a randomized controlled trial

Background: Ayurveda is a traditional Indian system of medicine. The customized Ayurvedic approach consists of a combination of several diagnostic procedures and subsequent individualized therapeutic interventions. Evaluation of inter-rater reliability (IRR) of Ayurvedic diagnoses has rarely been performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate IRR of Ayurvedic diagnosis for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: A diagnostic reliability study of 30 patients and 4 Ayurvedic experts was nested in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were diagnosed in a sequential order by all experts utilizing a semistructured patient history form. A nominal group technique as consensus procedure was performed to reach agreement on the items to be diagnosed. An IRR analysis using Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics was performed to determine a chance-corrected measure of agreement among raters. Results: One hundred and twenty different ratings and 30 consensus ratings were performed and analyzed. While high percentages of agreement for main diagnostic entities and the final Ayurveda diagnosis (95% consensus agreement on main diagnosis) could be observed, this was not reflected in the corresponding kappa values, which largely yielded fair-to-poor inter-rater agreement kappas for central diagnostic aspects such as prakriti and agni (κ values between 0 and 0.4). Notably, agreement on disease-related entities was better than that on constitutional entities. Conclusions: This is the first diagnostic study embedded in a clinical trial on patients with knee osteoarthritis utilizing a multimodality whole systems approach. Results showed a contrast between the high agreement of the consented final diagnosis and disagreement on certain diagnostic details. Future diagnostic studies should have larger sample sizes and a methodology more tailored to the specificities of traditional whole systems of medicine. Equal emphasis will need to be placed on all core diagnostic components of Ayurveda, both constitutional and disease specific, using detailed structured history taking forms

Ayurvedic vs. conventional nutritional therapy including low-FODMAP diet for patients with irritable Bowel syndrome - a randomized controlled trial

Aims: To compare the effects of Ayurvedic and conventional nutritional therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: Sixty-nine patients with IBS were randomized to Ayurvedic (n = 35) or conventional nutritional therapy according to the recommendations of the German Nutrition Society including the low-FODMAP diet (n = 34). Study visits took place at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS) after 3 months; secondary outcomes included stress (CPSS), anxiety and depression (HADS), well-being (WHO-5) and IBS-specific quality of life (IBS-QOL). A repeated measures general linear model (GLM) for intent-to-treat-analyses was applied in this explorative study. Results: After 3 months, estimated marginal means for IBS-SSS reductions were 123.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 92.8–154.9; p < 0.001] in the Ayurvedic and 72.7 (95% CI = 38.8–106.7; p < 0.001) in the conventional group. The IBS-SSS reduction was significantly higher in the Ayurveda group compared to the conventional therapy group (estimated marginal mean = 51.1; 95% CI = 3.8–98.5; p = 0.035) and clinically meaningful. Sixty-eight percentage of the variance in IBS-SSS reduction after 3 months can be explained by treatment, 6.5% by patients' expectations for their therapies and 23.4% by IBS-SSS at pre-intervention. Both therapies are equivalent in their contribution to the outcome variance. The higher the IBS-SSS score at pre-intervention and the larger the patients' expectations, the greater the IBS-SSS reduction. There were no significant group differences in any secondary outcome measures. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Patients with IBS seem to benefit significantly from Ayurvedic or conventional nutritional therapy. The results warrant further studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger sample sizes. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03019861, identifier: NCT03019861