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

Physicians become acupuncture patients: Not acupuncturists

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate changes in personal and professional use of acupuncture among physicians in Norway between 1994 and 2004. Design: Postal surveys were used. Setting: The study was conducted in Norway. Subjects: Proportional, stratified, random samples of working members of the Norwegian Medical Association under 71 years of age were chosen to participate. Sampling frame, sample, and, respondents were, respectively 11,728; 1466; and 1135 (77%) in 1994 and 16,462; 1646; and 962 (58%) in 2004. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were personal and professional use of acupuncture, which were analyzed overall and separately for gender, age, and position within a year and between years by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The percentage of physicians having used acupuncture for own disease or complaint has more than doubled, 18% in 2004 versus 8% in 1994 (OR 2.19; p &lt; 0.001) and half of the physicians intended to use acupuncture for own disease or complaint, 55% in 2004 and 53% in 1994 ( p ¼ 0.245). Four percent (4%) practiced acupuncture in both years and, in 2004years and, in , fewer intended to train in acupuncture, 5% in 2004years and, in versus 8% in 1994 p ¼ 0.033). In both years, more than a third recommended acupuncture for migraine, 37% and 41% ( p ¼ 0.569). Conclusions: Physicians in 2004, compared to 1994, still had positive attitudes toward acupuncture as a therapeutic method, but were rather acupuncture patients than acupuncturists

Researching complementary and alternative treatments – the gatekeepers are not at home

Background: To explore the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities. Discussion: There appears to be a gap between published studies showing little or no efficacy of CAM, and reports of substantial clinical benefit from patients and CAM practitioners. This "gap" might be partially due to the current focus on placebo-controlled randomized trials, which are appropriately designed to answer questions about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents. In an attempt to fit this assessment strategy, complex CAM treatment approaches have been dissected into standardized and often simplified treatment methods, and outcomes have been limited. Unlike conventional medicine, CAM has no regulatory or financial gatekeeper controlling their therapeutic "agents" before they are marketed. Treatments may thus be in widespread use before researchers know of their existence. In addition, the treatments are often provided as an integrated 'whole system' of care, without careful consideration of the safety issue. We propose a five-phase strategy for assessing CAM built on the acknowledgement of the inherent, unique aspects of CAM treatments and their regulatory status in most Western countries. These phases comprise: 1. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization 2. Safety status 3. Comparative effectiveness. 4. Component efficacy 5. Biological mechanisms. Summary: Using the proposed strategy will generate evidence relevant to clinical practice, while acknowledging the absence of regulatory and financial gatekeepers for CAM. It will also emphasize the important but subtle differences between CAM and conventional medical practic