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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: We evaluated complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among a medically underserved, predominately Hispanic community at the University of California Irvine Family Health Center, a federally qualified health center. Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous survey assessed patient use of, interest in, and communication preferences concerning CAM. Results: The 150 respondents primarily self-identified as Hispanic (74%), were born outside the United States (55%), were medically insured (56%), and had a high school education or less (55%). Of these respondents, 63% used at least 1 type of CAM; the most commonly used were: vitamins/supplements (32%), herbal medicine (29%), dietary/nutritional therapy (26%), massage (24%), meditation/relaxation (15%) and chiropractic (11%). Therapies that patients most desired to see provided at the clinic included massage, healthier cooking, guidance on herbs/supplements, and diet/nutrition. Among respondents, 61% were comfortable disclosing CAM use to physicians, 58% agreed physicians should have basic knowledge of CAM, and 47% desired that physicians ask about CAM use. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that CAM use is common among patients, and a large proportion of patients have interest in accessing CAM through their primary care clinic. Patients recognize the importance of communicating CAM use with their providers and seem receptive to discussing such topics.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 03/2015; 28(2):175-183. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2015.02.140210 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) are globally highly prevalent and characterized by severe pathological medical conditions. Several trials were conducted aiming at measuring the effects of manipulative therapies on patients affected by CID. The purpose of this review was to explore the extent to which osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) can be benefi-cial in medical conditions also classified as CID. This review included any type of experimental study which enrolled sub-jects with CID comparing OMT with any type of control procedure. The search was conducted on eight databases in January 2014 using a pragmatic literature search approach. Two independent re-viewers conducted study selection and data extraction for each study. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane methods. Heterogeneity was assessed and meta-analysis performed where possible. 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review enrolling 386 subjects. The search identified six RCTs, one laboratory study, one cross-over pilot studies, one observation-al study and one case control pilot study. Results suggest a potential effect of osteopathic medicine on patients with medical pathologies associated with CID (in particular Chronic Obstructive Pul-monary Disease (COPD), Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Asthma and Peripheral Arterial Disease) com-pared to no treatment or sham therapy although data remain elusive. Moreover one study showed possible effects on arthritis rat model. Meta-analysis was performed for COPD studies only show-ing no effect of any type of OMT applied versus control. No major side effects were reported by those receiving OMT. The present systematic review showed inconsistent data on the effect of OMT in the treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with CID, however the OMT appears to be a safe approach. Further more robust trials are needed to determine the direction and magnitude of the effect of OMT and to generalize favorable results.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0121327. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121327 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has steadily increased globally over the past two decades and is increasingly playing a role in the healthcare system in the United States. CAM practice-based effectiveness research requires an understanding of the settings in which CAM practitioners provide services. This paper describes and quantifies practice environment characteristics for a cross-sectional sample of doctors of chiropractic (DCs), licensed acupuncturists (LAcs), and licensed massage therapists (LMTs) in the United States. Using a cross-sectional telephone survey of DCs (n = 32), LAcs (n = 70), and LMTs (n = 184) in the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, we collected data about each location where practitioners work, as well as measures on practitioner and practice characteristics including: patient volume, number of locations where practitioners worked, CAM practitioner types working at each location, and business models of practice. The majority of practitioners reported having one practice location (93.8% of DCs, 80% of LAcs and 59.8% of LMTs) where they treat patients. Patient volume/week was related to practitioner type; DCs saw 83.13 (SD = 49.29) patients/week, LAcs saw 22.29 (SD = 16.88) patients/week, and LMTs saw 14.21 (SD =10.25) patients per week. Practitioners completed surveys for N = 388 practice locations. Many CAM practices were found to be multidisciplinary and/or have more than one practitioner: 9/35 (25.7%) chiropractic practices, 24/87 (27.6%) acupuncture practices, and 141/266 (53.0%) massage practices. Practice business models across CAM practitioner types were heterogeneous, e.g. sole proprietor, employee, partner, and independent contractor. CAM practices vary across and within disciplines in ways that can significantly impact design and implementation of practice-based research. CAM research and intervention programs need to be mindful of the heterogeneity of CAM practices in order to create appropriate interventions, study designs, and implementation plans.
    BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 05/2015; 15(1):140. DOI:10.1186/s12906-015-0659-7 · 1.88 Impact Factor