Doctor-patient discussions of alternative medicine for back pain

'Trying to put a square peg into a round hole': a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' views of integrating complementary medicine into primary care for musculoskeletal and mental health comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity of musculoskeletal (MSK) and mental health (MH) problems is common but challenging to treat using conventional approaches. Integration of conventional with complementary approaches (CAM) might help address this challenge. Integration can aim to transform biomedicine into a new health paradigm or to selectively incorporate CAM in addition to conventional care. This study explored professionals' experiences and views of CAM for comorbid patients and the potential for integration into UK primary care.

METHODS

We ran focus groups with GPs and CAM practitioners at three sites across England and focus groups and interviews with healthcare commissioners. Topics included experience of co-morbid MSK-MH and CAM/integration, evidence, knowledge and barriers to integration. Sampling was purposive. A framework analysis used frequency, specificity, intensity of data, and disconfirming evidence.

RESULTS

We recruited 36 CAM practitioners (4 focus groups), 20 GPs (3 focus groups) and 8 commissioners (1 focus group, 5 interviews). GPs described challenges treating MSK-MH comorbidity and agreed CAM might have a role. Exercise- or self-care-based CAMs were most acceptable to GPs. CAM practitioners were generally pro-integration. A prominent theme was different understandings of health between CAM and general practitioners, which was likely to impede integration. Another concern was that integration might fundamentally change the care provided by both professional groups. For CAM practitioners, NHS structural barriers were a major issue. For GPs, their lack of CAM knowledge and the pressures on general practice were barriers to integration, and some felt integrating CAM was beyond their capabilities. Facilitators of integration were evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness (particularly for CAM practitioners). Governance was the least important barrier for all groups. There was little consensus on the ideal integration model, particularly in terms of financing. Commissioners suggested CAM could be part of social prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM has the potential to help the NHS in treating the burden of MSK-MH comorbidity. Given the challenges of integration, selective incorporation using traditional referral from primary care to CAM may be the most feasible model. However, cost implications would need to be addressed, possibly through models such as social prescribing or an extension of integrated personal commissioning.

Complementary and alternative medicine in rural communities: current research and future directions

CONTEXTS: The consumption of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in rural areas is a significant contemporary health care issue. An understanding of CAM use in rural health can provide a new perspective on health beliefs and practice as well as on some of the core service delivery issues facing rural health care generally.

PURPOSE

This article presents the first review and synthesis of research findings on CAM use and practice in rural communities.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of literature from 1998 to 2010 in CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, and CSA Illumina (social sciences) was conducted. The search was confined to peer-reviewed articles published in English reporting empirical research findings on the use or practice of CAM in rural settings.

FINDINGS

Research findings are grouped and examined according to 3 key themes: "prevalence of CAM use and practice,""user profile and trends of CAM consumption," and "potential drivers and barriers to CAM use and practice."

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from recent research illustrates the substantial prevalence and complexity of CAM use in rural regions. A number of potential gaps in our understanding of CAM use and practice in rural settings are also identified.

Patient Disclosure about Herb and Supplement Use among Adults in the US

Analyses of 2002 National Health Interview supplement on complementary and alternative medicine (NHI%AM) indicate that approximately 38 million adults in the US (18.9% of the population) used natural herbs or supplements in the preceding 12 months, but only one-third told their physician about this use. The objectives of this study are: (i) to determine subpopulation rates of patient-physician communication about herbal product and natural supplement use and (ii) to identify the relative influence of patient factors and interaction factors associated with patient-physician communication about herb and supplement use. Logistic secondary analysis was done by using the complementary and alternative medicine supplement of the 2002 National Health Interview Survey. Subjects were a random stratified sample of US adults who used herbs in the past 12 months (n = 5 196) and self-reported rates of disclosure to physicians about herb and supplement use. Results show that disclosure rates were significantly lower for males, younger adults, racial and ethnic minorities and less intensive users of medical care. Across subpopulations, disclosure was the exception rather than the norm. Given the potential risks of delayed or inappropriate treatment and adverse drug reactions and interactions, physicians should be aware of herb and supplement use and counsel patients on the potential risks and benefits of these treatments.