Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Adults with Chronic Diseases: United States 2002

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Office of Analysis and Epidemiology, Hyattsville, MD, USA.
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.52). 11/2006; 12(8):805-12. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2006.12.805
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased in recent years.
The aim of this study was to determine the use of CAM among people with diagnosed chronic diseases.
Cross-sectional analysis was used.
The 2002 National Health Interview Survey was the setting.
Participants were representative of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population 18 years and older.
Respondents answered questions about use of CAM and physician-diagnosed arthritis, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and lung disease.
Adults with diagnosed chronic diseases are more likely to use CAM compared to adults with none of the reported chronic diseases. Adults with arthritis alone were most likely to report ever use of CAM (59.6%) followed by adults with cancer or lung disease alone or two or more chronic diseases (55%), adults with cardiovascular disease (46.4%), and adults with no chronic diseases (43.6%) and diabetes alone (41.4%). Adults with chronic diseases were also more likely to report use of CAM in the past 12 months (32% to 43.3%), followed by adults with none of these chronic diseases (32%), and adults with diabetes alone (26.2%). Less than 30% of CAM users in the past 12 months reported talking to their healthcare professional about CAM use. Limitations: Information about CAM use is based on self-report.
Use of CAM, particularly biologically based CAM therapies, is common and is more likely to be used by those with chronic diseases.

1 Follower
  • Source
    • "Over the past two decades, the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices—modalities used for health and wellbeing that are considered outside the realm of conventional medicine—has been steadily rising in the United States [1] [2] [3]. Patients with cancer and other chronic diseases are more likely to use CAM than are those without chronic illness [4], and breast cancer patients are more likely to use CAM than patients with colon [5], prostate [5], or gynecological [6] cancers. Estimates of CAM use among women with breast cancer range from 48% to 86% [7] [8] [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. We examine factors associated with self-care, use of practitioner-based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and their timing in a cohort of women with breast cancer. Methods. Study participants were women with breast cancer who participated in the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. Self-care is defined as the use of multivitamins, single vitamins, botanicals, other dietary supplements, mind-body practices, special diets, support groups, and prayer. Within each modality, study participants were categorized as continuous users (before and after diagnosis), starters (only after diagnosis), quitters (only before diagnosis), or never users. Multivariable logistic regression was used for the main analyses. Results. Of 764 women who provided complete data, 513 (67.2%) initiated a new form of self-care following breast cancer diagnosis. The most popular modalities were those that are ingestible, and they were commonly used in combination. The strongest predictor of continuous use of one type of self-care was continuous use of other types of self-care. Healthy behaviors, including high fruit/vegetable intake and exercise, were more strongly associated with continuously using self-care than starting self-care after diagnosis. Conclusions. Breast cancer diagnosis was associated with subsequent behavioral changes, and the majority of women undertook new forms of self-care after diagnosis. Few women discontinued use of modalities they used prior to diagnosis.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 08/2013; 2013:301549. DOI:10.1155/2013/301549 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The primary reason reported for use of TM in both countries was to address chronic health problems. This has been observed in other CAM studies [7] [14] [30] [51]. However, contrary to the original hypothesis the presenting complaints differed in the two countries. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction. International comparative research on traditional medicine (TM) offers a useful method for examining differences in patient characteristics and can provide insight into: (i) more universal characteristics which may cross cultures and international borders; (ii) unique characteristics influenced by regional/national factors; and (iii) cultural values of immigrant populations. To explore these issues TM patients from the United States and China were compared. Methods. Data collection took place at two TM college clinics. A convenience sample of 128 patients in China and 127 patients in the United States completed a 28-item questionnaire. Results. There was a marked similarity between the two patient groups in terms of the biological characteristics of age and gender. Musculoskeletal issues were the most common presenting complaints in the United States; while in China TM was used for a more diverse array of conditions. The majority of patients in both countries had initially used allopathic medicine (AM); significantly, more of the United States respondents stopped allopathic treatment after beginning traditional treatment. In comparing the two countries, patients in China were significantly more satisfied with AM and American patients significantly more satisfied with TM. In comparing the two medicines, the patient samples in both countries were significantly more satisfied with TM than AM. Discussion. Although treatment often originated with allopathic providers, many patients sought alternatives presumably to find the best solution to their problems. This tendency toward self-assignment suggests that a pluralistic healthcare system may provide the greatest satisfaction resulting from personal choice and improved outcomes.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 11/2008; 2011(1741-427X):204137. DOI:10.1093/ecam/nen065 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our focus on the 10 most common CAM therapies in the 2002 NHIS is different from several previous studies that have analyzed CAM use in terms of CAM domains (e.g. Mehta, Phillips, Davis, & McCarthy, 2007; Saydah & Eberhardt, 2006; Upchurch et al., 2007). While aggregating each single type of CAM into several major CAM domains can simplify the presentation of the results, it also prevents us from relating acculturation to a specific type of CAM. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been growing substantially in the US in recent years. Such a growth in CAM use coincides with an ongoing increase in the proportion of the foreign-born population in the US. The main objective of this study is to examine the relation between acculturation and the use of CAM therapies among immigrants. Data from a CAM supplement to the 2002 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed to estimate the effects of acculturation on the likelihood of using different CAM therapies over the past 12 months prior to the survey. The results suggest that the level of acculturation-as measured by nativity/length of stay in the US and language of interview-is strongly associated with CAM use. As immigrants stay longer in the US or as their use of English becomes more proficient, the likelihood that they use CAM therapies increases as well, and it gradually approaches the level of CAM use by native-born Americans. Moreover, this relation between acculturation and CAM use generally persists even after the effects of socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, self-reported health status, and other demographic variables have all been taken into consideration. The substantially lower rates of CAM use by recent immigrants and its possible causes warrant further research.
    Social Science & Medicine 02/2008; 66(2):439-53. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.023 · 2.56 Impact Factor
Show more