Use of complementary and alternative medicine at Norwegian and Danish hospitals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies have found that a high proportion of the population in western countries use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, little is known about whether CAM is offered in hospitals. The aim of this study was to describe to what extent CAM is offered in Norwegian and Danish hospitals and investigate possible changes in Norway since 2001.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A one-page questionnaire was sent to all included hospitals in both countries. The questionnaire was sent to the person responsible for the clinical activity, typically the medical director. 99 hospitals in the authority (85%) in Norway and 126 in Denmark (97%) responded. Given contact persons were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>CAM is presently offered in about 50% of Norwegian hospitals and one-third of Danish hospitals. In Norway CAM was offered in 50 hospitals, 40 of which involved acupuncture. 19 hospitals gave other alternative therapies like biofeedback, hypnosis, cupping, ear-acupuncture, herbal medicine, art therapy, homeopathy, reflexology, thought field therapy, gestalt therapy, aromatherapy, tai chi, acupressure, yoga, pilates and other. 9 hospitals offered more than one therapy form. In Denmark 38 hospitals offered acupuncture and one Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Light Therapy. The most commonly reported reason for offering CAM was scientific evidence in Denmark. In Norway it was the interest of a hospital employee, except for acupuncture where the introduction is more often initiated by the leadership and is more based on scientific evidence of effect. All persons (except one) responsible for the alternative treatment had a medical or allied health professional background and their education/training in CAM treatment varied substantially.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The extent of CAM being offered has increased substantially in Norway during the first decade of the 21^stcentury. This might indicate a shift in attitude regarding CAM within the conventional health care system.</p

Any difference? Use of a CAM provider among cancer patients, coronary heart disease (CHD) patients and individuals with no cancer/CHD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients has been described previously, prevalence of use has not commonly been compared to other disease groups in a true population sample where CAM use or cancer is not the main focus. The aims of the present study are to (1) examine how CAM use in cancer patients differs from people with a previous CHD diagnosis and people with no cancer or CHD diagnosis in an unselected general population and (2), investigate the use of a CAM provider among individuals with a previous cancer diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 8040 men and women aged 29 to 87 in the city of Tromsø, Norway filled in a questionnaire developed specifically for the Tromsø V study with questions on life style and health issues. Visits to a CAM provider within the last 12 months and information on cancer, heart attack and angina pectoris (heart cramp) were among the questions. 1449 respondents were excluded from the analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 6591 analysed respondents 331 had a prior cancer diagnosis, of whom 7.9% reported to have seen a CAM provider within the last 12 months. This did not differ significantly from neither the CHD group (6.4%, p = 0.402) nor the no cancer/CHD group (9.5%, p = 0.325).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>According to this study, the proportion of cancer patients seeing a CAM provider was not statistically significantly different from patients with CHD or individuals without cancer or CHD.</p

A Complex Systems Science Perspective for Whole Systems of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

Whole systems complementary and alternative medicine (WS-CAM) approaches share a basic worldview that embraces interconnectedness; emergent, non-linear outcomes to treatment that include both local and global changes in the human condition; a contextual view of human beings that are inseparable from and responsive to their environments; and interventions that are complex, synergistic, and interdependent. These fundamental beliefs and principles run counter to the assumptions of reductionism and conventional biomedical research methods that presuppose unidimensional simple causes and thus dismantle and individually test various interventions that comprise only single aspects of the WS-CAM system. This paper will demonstrate the superior fit and practical advantages of using complex adaptive systems (CAS) and related modeling approaches to develop the scientific basis for WS-CAM. Furthermore, the details of these CAS models will be used to provide working hypotheses to explain clinical phenomena such as (a) persistence of changes for weeks to months between treatments and/or after cessation of treatment, (b) nonlocal and whole systems changes resulting from therapy, (c) Hering\u27s law, and (d) healing crises. Finally, complex systems science will be used to offer an alternative perspective on cause, beyond the simple reductionism of mainstream mechanistic ontology and more parsimonious than the historical vitalism of WS-CAM. Rather, complex systems science provides a scientifically rigorous, yet essentially holistic ontological perspective with which to conceptualize and empirically explore the development of disease and illness experiences, as well as experiences of healing and wellness

A pilot feasibility study of a questionnaire to determine European Union-wide CAM use

Background: No questionnaire specifically measuring the core components of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has been validated for use across European Union (EU) countries. We aimed to determine the face validity, acceptability and the participants' comprehension of a pre-existing questionnaire designed to measure 'CAM use', to provide a comparative, standardised questionnaire for use by health care providers, policy makers and purchasers throughout Europe. Methods: Established procedures were employed to translate the questionnaire into 4 EU languages. The translated questionnaires were piloted on 50 healthy adults from each country who may never have used CAM. 10 participants per country also took part in audio-recorded think aloud interviews about the questionnaire. The interviews were transcribed and analysed in the language in which they were conducted; findings were summarised in English. Questionnaire data were pooled across countries, and patterns of completion and missing data were analysed. Results: The questionnaire was translated into Italian, Spanish, Dutch and Romanian. The mean age of the participants was 43.6 years. 34% were male, 87.4% were either light or heavy CAM users, and 12.6% were non-users. Qualitative analysis identified common problems across countries including a 'hard-to-read' layout, misunderstood terminology and uncertainty in choosing response options. Quantitative analysis confirmed that a substantial minority of respondents failed to follow questionnaire instructions and that some questions had substantial rates of missing data. Conclusions: The I-CAM-Q has low face validity and low acceptability, and is likely to produce biased estimates of CAM use if applied in England, Romania, Italy, The Netherlands or Spain. Further work is required to develop the layout, terms, some response options and instructions for completion before it can be used across the EU