Attitudes to, and practice of, unconventional medicine by physicians in Italy.

Abstract

Given the great public demand for unconventional medicines (UM) in most Western countries, the aim of this study was to assess the attitudes to, and supply of, UM by physicians in Italy.
A cross-sectional survey of all of the physicians belonging to the Ordine dei Medici of the province of Parma was carried out by means of an anonymous questionnaire mailed to 2631 physicians and returned by 1734 (66%). The outcome measurements were the prevalence of opinions concerning UM, the prevalence of its practice, and the extent to which demographic and practice characteristics influenced it.
The majority of the physicians (53%) attributed some efficacy to UM. This belief was significantly more frequent amongst female physicians (p<0.01). A small proportion of physicians (8%) claimed to practice some form of UM. The following types of physicians were also more likely to practice UM: rural physicians (p=0.01), those working as National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners or in private practice (p<0.0001) and those specialized in areas relating to the musculoskeletal apparatus or anesthesia/intensive care (p<0.01).
This Italian survey found a smaller proportion of physicians practicing UM on their patients than those indicated by other published surveys.

Full text

Page 1

Original article
Attitudes to, and practice of, unconventional medicine
by physicians in ItalyB
Giorgio Cocconia,*, Caterina Caminitib, Sylvain Caprigliaa, Maurizio Gennaria,
Roberto Minaria, Paolo Schianchia, Tiberio d’Aloiaa
aFrom the Ordine dei Medici della Provincia di Parma, strada al Collegio Maria Luigia 17, 43100 Parma, Italy
bFrom the Epidemiology Service, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, 43100 Parma, Italy
Received 10 February 2005; received in revised form 23 June 2005; accepted 31 October 2005
Abstract
Background: Given the great public demand for unconventional medicines (UM) in most Western countries, the aim of this study was to
assess the attitudes to, and supply of, UM by physicians in Italy.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey of all of the physicians belonging to the Ordine dei Medici of the province of Parma was carried out
by means of an anonymous questionnaire mailed to 2631 physicians and returned by 1734 (66%). The outcome measurements were the
prevalence of opinions concerning UM, the prevalence of its practice, and the extent to which demographic and practice characteristics
influenced it.
Results: The majority of the physicians (53%) attributed some efficacy to UM. This belief was significantly more frequent amongst
female physicians (p<0.01). A small proportion of physicians (8%) claimed to practice some form of UM. The following types of
physicians were also more likely to practice UM: rural physicians (p=0.01), those working as National Health Service (NHS) general
practitioners or in private practice (p<0.0001) and those specialized in areas relating to the musculoskeletal apparatus or anesthesia/
intensive care (p<0.01).
Conclusions: This Italian survey found a smaller proportion of physicians practicing UM on their patients than those indicated by other
published surveys.
D 2005 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Complementary therapies; Alternative medicine; Health care surveys; Questionnaires; Delivery of health care
1. Introduction
A number of population surveys have suggested that
there is a considerable demand for unconventional medi-
cines (UM) in the industrialized world. Since it includes a
broad spectrum of practices and beliefs, the term UM is
more general and less binding than the more common term
‘‘complementary’’ and/or ‘‘alternative’’ medicines.
The percentage of the population that uses UM has been
reported to be 16% in The Netherlands [1], 33% in Finland
[2], 33% in the UK [3] and 36% in France [1]. A survey in
Canada found that 15% of the population had seen an
alternative therapy practitioner during the previous 6 months
[4]. A 1997 survey in the USA found that 40% of the
population had used some type of UM during the previous
year [5] and another in 2002 found that 62% of adults (36%,
excluding prayer) had used some form of UM during the
previous 12 months [6]. Furthermore, the use of UM and
expenditure on it increased dramatically from 1990 to 1997
[5,7].
The wide range of the reported utilization rates can be
explained by differences in survey methodology and
disparities in the range of therapies included within the
definition of UM. In addition to demographics and health
status, it has been reported that other possible predictors of
UM use are: (a) dissatisfaction with conventional treat-
0953-6205/$ - see front matter D 2005 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2005.10.002
iThe authors have no conflicts of interest.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0521 460474; fax: +39 0521 467829.
E-mail address: giorgio.cocconi@tin.it (G. Cocconi).
European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32 – 37
www.elsevier.com/locate/ejim

Page 2

ments; (b) the fact that it is more compatible with patients’
values, world views or beliefs regarding the nature and
meaning of health and illness; or (c) the fact that it allows
more personal autonomy and control over health care
decisions [8].
The 1999 multipurpose investigation of health carried out
by the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) in cooperation
with the National Health System (NHS) reported that about 9
million Italians used UM at least once during the period
1997–1999, a figure that corresponds to 16% of the total
population and is more than double that recorded in 1991.
The most widely used types of UM were homeopathy,
manipulative treatments, herbal therapy and acupuncture.
The use of homeopathy more than tripled between 1991 and
1999 [9], while the use of other types of UM was
considerably less.
Given this demand for UM in Italy, it became important
to assess the opinions and behavior of physicians towards
UM. This paper reports the results of a survey of the attitude
to, and practice of, UM by physicians belonging to the
Ordine dei Medici of Parma, a medium-sized province in
northern Italy with a total population of about 400,000
inhabitants. This was the first large study of its kind ever
carried out in Italy.
2. Methods
2.1. Survey methodology
Italian law states that anyone practicing a professional
medical activity must be a member of the Ordine dei
Medici. For this survey, the physicians belonging to the
Ordine dei Medici of Parma were invited to complete and
anonymously return a mailed questionnaire in a freepost
envelope (A), together with a card declaring that they had
done so in a second freepost envelope (B).
The first page of the questionnaire contained 10
questions, seven of which concerned personal data and
professional information including the main type of
professional activity, to what extent respondents were
actively practicing physicians and their main area of
interest. Three questions asked if they believed that UM
has some efficacy (question 8), if their patients seek UM
(question 9) and if they directly practiced UM on their
patients (question 10). Physicians who practiced UM were
asked to reply to a further 10 questions asking if their
practice of UM was full-time, the types of UM practiced,
their UM education and training, their membership in
scientific UM societies and the clinical conditions they
used UM to treat. The varieties of UM listed included
homeopathy, homotoxicology, anthroposophic medicine,
traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, herbal therapy,
ayurvedic medicine, manipulative treatments (chiropractic,
applied kinesiology, osteopathy), posturology and any
other treatment.
In order to achieve a high response rate, the survey was
publicized among physicians by:
(a) an ad hoc meeting of the Ordine dei Medici describing
the questionnaire and its items;
(b) a personal letter to all of the physicians playing
leading roles in the public and private health services
of Parma from the President of the Ordine dei Medici
asking them to respond to the questionnaire them-
selves and to encourage their staff members to do so;
(c) an ad hoc article in the medical journal of the Ordine
dei Medici of Parma;
(d) an ad hoc article in the local daily newspaper.
Furthermore, the questionnaire was mailed together with
a short accompanying letter, signed by the President of the
Ordine dei Medici of Parma and the Chairman of the Ad
Hoc Committee on UM, stressing the scientific nature of the
initiative and assuring anonymity.
2.2. Statistical analysis
This was a cross-sectional survey of all of the physicians
belonging to the Ordine dei Medici of Parma aged 70 years
or younger. The main outcome measures were the preva-
lence of opinions that UM has some efficacy, the prevalence
of UM practice and the influence of demographic and
practice characteristics (age, sex, residence, specialization,
main type of professional activity) on such opinions and
use.
In order to avoid a selection bias, we compared some of
the demographic and practice characteristics of the
responding and non-responding physicians in order to
analyze the relationship between those attributing some
efficacy to UM and those who did not. The v2test and
exploratory multivariate regression analyses were used to
confirm the findings of the bivariate analyses and to assess
their relative strength. Multivariate logistic regression was
used to identify the relevant predictors of the dichotomous
outcomes of believed efficacy or not, and direct practice or
not [10]. The variables used in these analyses were sex,
age, years since graduation in medicine, place of residence,
main professional activity and specialization. Statistical
significance was assumed when the p level was below
0.05. The data were analyzed using SAS version 6.11 [11].
2.3. Information concerning the main professional activities
of Italian physicians
Given the multiplicity of the types of medical activity
and the fact that individual physicians may be engaged in
more than one at any time, the questionnaires asked the
physicians to identify themselves as (principally) belonging
to one of the several categories. In Italy, most health care
provision is financed by the State. The physicians working
in public hospitals (the vast majority of all hospitals) are
G. Cocconi et al. / European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32–37
33

Page 3

paid by the State as employees of the National Health
Service (NHS) or as employees of State-run universities
(teachers of undergraduates in medicine) whose salaries are
supplemented by the NHS. These physicians are referred to
in this paper as ‘‘NHS hospital doctors’’ and may have full-
time contracts (in which case they carry out their private
practice inside the hospital employing them) or part-time
contracts (in which case they carry out their private practice
outside the hospital employing them).
Non-hospital NHS physicians are mainly general practi-
tioners (family doctors). Their number is limited and they
are paid by the NHS on an annual per capita basis according
to the number of patients in their practice, and not on a fee
per item of service rendered. These physicians are referred
to as ‘‘NHS general practitioners’’.
Physicians who are not paid by the State work in private
clinics (most of which have agreements with the NHS) or
private surgeries and are referred to as ‘‘private practice
physicians’’. This paper also refers to ‘‘postgraduate trainee’’
physicians, who work in hospitals during their speciality
training, and a few doctors working outside of hospitals in
‘‘duty medical units’’ that provide out of hours cover for
general practitioners at night, on weekends or during public
holidays.
3. Results
The questionnaire was sent to the 2631 physicians aged
70 years or younger belonging to the Ordine dei Medici of
Parma in April 2001. Forty-nine percent (1289) had been
returned by June 2001. In July 2001, a reminder
questionnaire was sent to the 1342 physicians who had
not replied to the first one and a further 445 completed
questionnaires (17%) were received. The questionnaire was
therefore completed by 1734 of the 2631 invited physi-
cians (66%).
Statistical comparisons of some of the characteristics of
the responders (n=1734, 66%) and non-responders (n=899,
34%) showed that there were no significant differences in
terms of age, sex or site of residence (the only known
characteristics of the responding and non-responding
physicians).
Table 1 shows the responses to the three main questions
(missing responses were not considered). More than half of
the physicians attributed some efficacy to UM, about three-
quarters stated that their patients asked for UM-based
treatments and less than 10% personally practiced some
types of UM on their patients.
Table 2 shows the distribution of some of the character-
istics of the respondents in relation to their opinion
concerning the efficacy of UM. The only difference related
to gender was that UM was attributed some efficacy
significantly more frequently by female than male physi-
cians (p<0.01).
Table 1
Responses to the three main questions
QuestionsResponse
YesNo
No.% No.%
Question 8
Do you think UM has some efficacy?90853 802a
47
Question 9
Do patients want UM?1277 7641024
Question 10
Do you practice UM on your patients?1438 158892
aTotal of ‘‘no’’ and ‘‘don’t know’’ responses.
Table 2
Distribution of some characteristics of the responding physicians by their
opinion concerning the efficacy of UM (percentages)
CharacteristicsOpinion
Efficacious Inefficaciousa
n=906
n=799
P value
Mean age (years)
Females
Residence (out of town)
No clinicotherapeutic functions
Main professional activity
NHS hospital doctors
NHS general practitioners
Private practice physicians
Other
Specialization
No
Yes
Related to musculoskeletal
apparatus
Anesthesia/intensive care
Other
45T8 46T8 NS
<0.01
NS
NS
NS
36
33
10
29
33
11
42
19
27
12
42
21
27
10
NS
20 21
77
65
87 88
aIncluding ‘‘don’t know’’.
Table 3
Distribution of some characteristics of the responding physicians by their
practice of UM (percentages)
CharacteristicsPractice UM
YesNo
n=143
n=1588
P value
Mean age (years)
Females
Residence (out of town)
Not actively practicing
Main professional activity
NHS hospital doctors
NHS general practitioners
Private practice physicians
Other
No specialization
Main specialization
Related to musculoskeletal apparatus
Anesthesia/intensive care
Other
46T8
28
45
11
46T8
33
32
18
NS
NS
0.01
0.02
<0.0001
20
32
40
10
24
43
19
26
12
20NS
<0.01
22
10
78
6
5
89
G. Cocconi et al. / European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32–37
34

Page 4

Table 3 shows the distribution of some of the character-
istics of the respondents in relation to their practice or
otherwise of UM. There were no differences in terms of age
or sex. However, physicians practicing UM were less often
actively practicing physicians (p=0.02), NHS hospital
doctors, NHS general practitioners or private practice
physicians (p<0.0001) and were more likely to be rural
residents (p=0.01) or to specialize in musculoskeletal or
anesthesia/intensive care medicine (p<0.01).
Table 4 shows some of the professional characteristics of
physicians who practiced UM. The overall mean proportion
was 8%, but only 3% of the non-actively practicing
physicians, 4% of the NHS hospital doctors and 3% of the
physicians working in duty medical units practiced UM as
opposed to 12% of the physicians working in private
practice and 13% of the NHS general practitioners.
Table 5 shows the proportions of physicians practicing
UM by type of postgraduate specialization. The highest
proportions corresponded to those whose specializations
related to the musculoskeletal apparatus (25%) or anesthe-
sia/intensive care (14%), but higher proportions than the
overall average of 8% were found among pediatricians
(12%), oncologists/radiotherapists (11%), neurologists
(10%) and obstetricians/gynecologists (9%).
Of the 143 physicians who declared that they practice
any type of UM on their patients, only 8% practice UM
alone; the remaining 92% provide UM together with
conventional medicine. Fifty percent of the physicians
practicing UM on their patients stated that they prescribed
UM medications. A large majority of the UM practitioners
(77%) had been trained to practice UM by means of formal
educational courses; the other 23% said that they were self-
educated. Some 41% declared that they subscribe to one or
more UM journals and 36% that they belonged to at least
one UM society.
The questionnaires reported the UM disciplines offered
by the group of UM practitioners (the sum of the
percentages is more than 100% because each physician
could indicate more than one type of UM). Homeopathy
was the most widely practiced discipline (44%), followed by
acupuncture (34%), herbal therapy (29%) and manipulative
treatments (20%). Of the different manipulative treatments
mentioned in the questionnaire, most physicians declared
that they practiced applied kinesiology and a minority
chiropractic or osteopathy. Less than 20% but more than
10% of the UM practitioners reported practicing homotox-
icology, posturology and traditional Chinese medicine.
Almost insignificant proportions said they practiced ayur-
vedic or anthroposophic medicine.
The questionnaires reported the types of clinical con-
ditions treated with UM by the group of UM practitioners.
Eighty-two percent treated conditions of the musculoskel-
etal system, 32% psychological or somatic disorders, 28%
headaches and 18% allergic conditions or digestive disor-
ders. A smaller proportion treated female endocrine or
genital disorders, lung disease or disorders of the oral cavity.
Multiple backward regression analysis of the opinions
concerning the efficacy of UM only revealed a significant
influence of gender, with female physicians being more
likely to perceive UM as having some efficacy (OR=1.38,
95% CI=1.07–1.78, p=0.01). Multiple backward regres-
sion analysis of the practice of UM identified two significant
variables: private practice (OR=3.19, 95% CI=1.84–5.51,
p<0.0001) and specializations related to the musculoskel-
etal apparatus (OR=5.19, 95% CI=2.86–9.41, p<0.0001)
or to anesthesia/intensive care (OR=3.56, 95% CI=1.62–
7.82, p=0.0015).
4. Discussion
In May 2002, the National Federation of the Ordini dei
Medici e degli Odontoiatri (FNOMCeO), the professional
body of all Italian physicians, stated that the practice of nine
UM disciplines have to be considered ‘‘medical acts’’ that
cannot be practiced by non-physicians [12]. The nine UM
disciplines are: acupuncture, herbal therapy, ayurvedic
medicine, anthroposophic medicine, homeopathic medicine,
traditional Chinese medicine, homotoxicology, osteopathy
and chiropractice. As in most of the European Union,
medicine can only be practiced in Italy by statutorily
recognized health professionals. Italy has no officially
accepted registration for any type of UM, none of which
is available from the NHS. However, the Italian deontolog-
ical code does allow physicians to practice UM under
certain conditions, the first and foremost of which is the
informed consent of the patient.
Table 4
Proportions of physicians practicing UM by different professional
characteristics
Type of professional activity No.Physicians (%)
Actively practicing physicians
Yes
Partially
No
Main professional activity
NHS hospital doctors
NHS general practitioners
Private practice physicians
Postgraduate trainees
Duty medical units
1397
139
176
9
9
3
712
355
463
104
34
4
13
12
9
3
Table 5
Proportion of physicians practicing UM by type of specializationa
Type of specializationNo.Users (%)
Any relating to musculoskeletal apparatus
Anesthesia/intensive care
Pediatrics
Oncology/radiotherapy
Neurology
Obstetrics/gynecology
81
65
90
18
42
56
25
14
12
11
10
9
aThe similar individual specializations reported in the questionnaires
were grouped together in the database.
G. Cocconi et al. / European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32–37
35

Page 5

We deliberately chose the term UM rather than the more
common ‘‘complementary’’ and/or ‘‘alternative’’ medicines
because it is more general and less binding. The term
‘‘complementary’’ is not so clear as it implies a non-
conventional diagnostic or treatment medical practice that
is used in addition to conventional medicine but does not
exclude its use whenever indicated. Likewise, the term
‘‘alternative’’ is not so clear as it implies a medical practice
that challenges conventional medicine, or one that is not
scientifically proven, or one that requires the unique personal
ability of whoever practices it, or one based on magic or
religion, etc. In the final analysis, the terms ‘‘unconvention-
al’’, ‘‘complementary’’ and ‘‘alternative’’ are only statements
and not conceptual definitions. Moreover, devising a concise
conceptual definition of conventional medicine is equally
problematic.
This study is amongst the largest of its kind ever
performed (over 2500 physicians surveyed), yet the response
rate to this survey was 66% (i.e., about two-thirds of all the
contacted physicians), similar to most other reports in the
literature [13]. We found that, overall, only 8% of physicians
practice UM on their patients. Other surveys have consis-
tentlyreportedhigherfigures:24%intheUSA[14],27–30%
in New Zealand [15,16], 47% in The Netherlands [17],
between 13% and 30% in the UK [18–23], and 13–17% in
Canada [24]. This may indicate that Italian physicians are, by
and large, conservative and orthodox in their practice of
medicine. On the other hand, it may be that the selection of
physiciansinothersurveyswasbiasedtowardpractitionersof
UM. Our survey was addressed to all of the physicians
belonging to the Ordine dei Medici of Parma, without any
selection criterion other than age. This choice was different
from that adopted by other surveys, which have usually
selected specific categories, mainly general practitioners
[13]. It was, therefore, possible to evaluate the results in
relation to the type of professional medical activity practiced.
Furthermore, the survey methodology allowed a comparison
of some demographic characteristics of respondents and non-
respondents. The fact that there were no significant differ-
ences excludes any major bias from the categories of
physicians selected.
Although much of the literature dealing with UM
selectively concentrates on potentially life-threatening or
debilitating illnesses, such as cancer [25,26], our survey
(like other non-selective surveys) shows that the clinical
conditions most frequently treated with UM are chronic,
not life-threatening, incurable or not substantially improv-
able by conventional medicine. This confirms that different
types of UM are used to treat a rather similar group of
clinical conditions. It is also probable that most of the
physicians practicing UM also use orthodox medicine.
Only 7% of the practitioners in our survey practice UM
full-time, and so it is likely that nearly all the user
physicians adopt sequential, alternate or combined
approaches. It is also possible that UM is paradoxically
reserved to treat some conditions for which conventional
medicine is considered ineffective and is used as a sort of
last resort based on hope or faith.
Female physicians attributed some efficacy to UM
significantly more often than did their male counterparts.
This may simply be a reflection of the fact that general
population surveys have repeatedly found that UM is
preferred by a higher percentage of females than males and
thatfemalephysiciansaremorelikelytorecommendUM[5].
A well-publicized national survey of several forms of
UM undertaken in the USA in 1993 reported several forms
of UM infrequently or never used or mentioned in our
survey. These included aromatherapy, biofeedback, energy
healing, folk remedies, hypnosis, special diets, spiritual or
religious healing and yoga [7]. Although not listed in our
questionnaire, this was probably not the reason they were
not mentioned. Quite simply, it is more likely that they were
not mentioned because neither Italian physicians nor their
patients had ever heard of them. It seems the spectrum of
UM modalities practiced depends on geographically pre-
determined factors such as education and culture. Homeop-
athy and the more modern homotoxicology are the most
widely applied types of UM in Italy. This may reflect the
high and increasing demand for homeopathy, as reported in
a recent Italian public opinion poll [9]. Acupuncture, herbal
therapy and manipulative treatments were practiced fre-
quently, whereas other types of UM (particularly those
based on old Eastern medical traditions or religious or
philosophic premises) are rarely practiced.
Our survey was carried out in a single geographic area of
Italy, and its results may therefore not be generally
applicable. However, the questions were global rather than
specific and the response rate was very high. Furthermore,
to the best of our knowledge, few if any surveys of attitudes
towards, and the practice of, UM among physicians have
been carried out in southern Europe, and none in Italy. We
therefore believe that our results may be useful in
documenting the current situation in Italy and also relevant
to the rest of Europe [27].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Francesca Pelosi and all
of the other employees of the Ordine dei Medici e degli
Odontoiatri of Parma for their help in carrying out the
survey, as well as all of the physicians who replied to the
questionnaire.
References
[1] Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. BMJ
1994;309:107–11.
[2] Vaskilampi T, Merilainen P, Sinkkonen S. The use of alternative
treatments in the Finnish adult population. In: Lewith GT, Aldridge D,
editors. Clinical Research Methodology for Complementary Thera-
pies. London, England’ Hodder & Stoughton; 1993. p. 204–29.
G. Cocconi et al. / European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32–37
36

Page 6

[3] Zollman C, Vickers A. ABC of complementary medicine. Users and
practitioners of complementary medicine. BMJ 1999;319:836–8.
[4] Millar WJ. Use of alternative health care practitioners by Canadians.
Can J Public Health 1997;88:154–8.
[5] Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, et al. Trends in alternative
medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997. Results of a follow-up
national survey. JAMA 1998;280:1569–75.
[6] Barnes P, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary
and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv
Data 2004;343:1–19.
[7] Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR,
Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States: preva-
lence, costs and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993;328:246–52.
[8] Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine. Results of a national
study. JAMA 1998;279:1548–53.
[9] ISTAT. Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie ‘‘Condizioni di salute e
ricorso a servizi sanitari’’, anni 1999–2000. La cura e il ricorso ai
servizi sanitari, capitolo 2, ISTAT Collana Informazioni.
[10] Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley
& Sons.
[11] SAS Statistical Analysis System. Cary, NC’ SAS Institute Inc.; 1985.
[12] Le linee guida della FNOMCeO sulle medicine e pratiche non
convenzionali. La Professione 2002;4:5.
[13] Astin JA, Marie A, Pelletier KR, Hansen E, Haskell WL. A review of
the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by
mainstream physicians. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:2303–10.
[14] Corbin Winslow L, Shapiro H. Physicians want education about
complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication
with their patients. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1176–81.
[15] Hadley CM. Complementary medicine and the general practitioner: a
survey of general practitioners in the Wellington area. N Z Med J
1988;101:766–8.
[16] Marshall RJ, Gee R, Israel M, et al. The use of alternative therapies by
Auckland general practitioners. N Z Med J 1990;103:213–5.
[17] Visser GJ, Peters L. Alternative medicine and general practitioners in
The Netherlands: towards acceptance and integration. Fam Pract 1990;
7:227–32.
[18] Perkin MR, Pearcy RM, Fraser JS. A comparison of the attitudes
shown by general practitioners, hospital doctors and medical students
towards alternative medicine. J R Soc Med 1994;87:523–5.
[19] White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. Complementary medicine: use and
attitudes among GPs. Fam Pract 1997;14:302–6.
[20] Perry R, Dowrick CF. Complementary medicine and general practice:
an urban perspective. Complement Ther Med 2002;8:71–5.
[21] Lewith GT, Hyland M, Gray SF. Attitudes to and use of complemen-
tary medicine among the physicians in the United Kingdom.
Complement Ther Med 2001;9:167–72.
[22] Thomas KJ, Nicholl J, Fall M. Access to complementary medicine via
general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:25–30.
[23] Wearn AM, Greenfield SM. Access to complementary medicine in
general practice: survey in one UK health authority. J R Soc Med
1998;91:465–70.
[24] Verhoef MJ, Sutherland LR. Alternative medicine and general
practitioners:opinionsand
1995;41:1005–11.
[25] Richardson MA, Sanders T, Palmer JL, Greisinger A, Singletary SE.
Complementary/alternative medicine use in a comprehensive cancer
center and the implications for oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000;
18:2505–14.
[26] Boon H, Stewart M, Kennard MA, et al. Use of complementary/al-
ternative medicine by breast cancer survivors in Ontario: prevalence
and perceptions. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2515–21.
[27] Fisher P, Ward A. Medicine in Europe: complementary medicine in
Europe. BMJ 1994;309:107–11.
behaviour.CanFam Physician
G. Cocconi et al. / European Journal of Internal Medicine 17 (2006) 32–37
37