Definitions and patterns of CAM use by the lay public

Assessment of complementary health approaches use in pediatric oncology: Modification and preliminary validation of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) questionnaires

OBJECTIVE

Complementary Health Approaches (CHA) are commonly used by children with cancer; however, a few health care providers (HCPs) inquire about the use of CHA. A standardized questionnaire could facilitate such clinical discussions. We aimed to adapt and determine the face and content validity of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments are you using?" (WHAT) child and parent-report questionnaires in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

An electronic Delphi survey that included children with cancer (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs and CHA researchers was conducted to reach consensus on the content of the WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology. Children and parents from the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), and HCPs and researchers from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology and Pediatric Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research and Education Network completed the survey. To determine the face and content validity of the questionnaires, two iterative cycles of individual interviews were conducted with purposive samples of children (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs from SickKids.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on all domains and items of the original WHAT questionnaires after one Delphi cycle (n = 61). For face and content validity testing, the first cycle of interviews (n = 19) revealed that the questionnaires were mostly comprehensive and relevant. However, the paper-based format of the original WHAT was not user-friendly, and generic items were vague and not aimed at facilitating clinical dialogues about CHA use. The WHAT questionnaires were then modified into electronic cancer-specific self- and proxy-report questionnaires including 13 and 15 items, respectively. The second cycle (n = 21) showed no need for further changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified electronic cancer-specific WHAT questionnaires showed adequate face and content validity. The next step is to determine inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of administration of the modified WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology.

Questionnaires assessing the use of complementary health approaches in pediatrics and their measurement properties: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify questionnaires assessing the use of complementary health approaches (CHA) in pediatrics, describe their content, and appraise the methodological quality of the studies and the measurement properties of the questionnaires.

METHOD

Major electronic databases were searched from 2011 to 2020. Studies which aimed to assess the use of CHA and studies which reported developing and validating CHA questionnaires in pediatrics were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and rated the methodological quality of the studies and measurement properties of the questionnaires using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. When consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included. From these studies, 35 CHA questionnaires with a variety of different items were identified. Only two studies aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of two questionnaires. One questionnaire, available as a self- and proxy-report, was initially validated in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and the other, available as an interviewer-administered questionnaire, was validated in children with cancer. According to the COSMIN, the methodological quality of both studies was inadequate or doubtful, and both questionnaires was not thoroughly validated.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed a lack of a thoroughly validated CHA questionnaire in pediatrics. However, two questionnaires were found to hold promise. To address this gap, one of the existing questionnaires should be adapted and further validated.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in US Adults With Moderate Mental Distress

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by race/ethnicity and to identify sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with CAM use among US adults with moderate mental distress (MMD).

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We used data for 6016 noninstitutionalized US adults with MMD (3492 non-Hispanic whites, 953 non-Hispanic blacks, 1078 Hispanics, 268 Asians, and 225 others consisted of American Indian, Alaska Native, and those reporting multiple races). The 2012 NHIS asks about 36 types of CAM use in the past 12 months. We constructed (1) overall, any CAM use; (2) 5 major types of CAM use; and (3) individual types of CAM use indicators. Using a cross-sectional design with complex survey techniques, we estimated race/ethnicity-specific CAM prevalence, and odds of past year CAM use by race/ethnicity, sociodemographic, and health-related factors.

RESULTS

Nearly 40% of adults with MMD used CAM in the past year compared with 32% of those without MMD ( P < .001). In adults with MMD, past year CAM use differed by race/ethnicity, ranging from 24.3% (blacks) to 44.7% (Asians) and 46.8% (others) ( P < .001). Being younger, female, living in the west, higher education, being employed, more than 4 ambulatory care visits, and functional limitations were associated with higher odds of CAM use ( P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with MMD use CAM more frequently than those without MMD. In addition, CAM use was significantly differed by race/ethnicity in adults with MMD. This underscores the need for good patient-provider communication and suggests opportunity for dialogue about integration between conventional providers and CAM practitioners to facilitate optimal mental health care.

Development and Preliminary Face and Content Validation of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) Questionnaires Assessing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Pediatric Rheumatology

Objective

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is commonly used by children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), yet no validated questionnaires assess that use. The objective of this study was to develop child self- and parent proxy-report questionnaires assessing CAM use and to determine the face and content validity of the “Which Health Approaches and Treatments are you using?” (WHAT) questionnaires in pediatric rheumatology.

Methods

A sequential phased mixed methods approach was used to develop the questionnaires. A Delphi Survey of 126 experts followed by an interdisciplinary consensus conference of 14 stakeholders in CAM, general pediatrics and pediatric rheumatology was held to develop consensus on the content of the questionnaires using a nominal group technique. To determine face and content validity of the questionnaires, two groups, including (a) a purposive sample of 22 children with JIA 8 to 18 years and their parents from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Hospital for Sick Children, and (b) 21 Canadian pediatric rheumatology experts, participated in interviews. Participants were independently asked about the goal, understandability and comprehensiveness of the WHAT questionnaires, as well as the relevance of items.

Results

Consensus was reached on 17 items of the WHAT questionnaires. The domains found to be relevant were child’s CAM use, factors associated with CAM use, perceived impact of CAM use, and communication about CAM. A total of 15 items in the parent proxy-report questionnaire and 13 items in the child report questionnaire showed adequate content validity.

Conclusions

Consensus was reached by experts on the content of a pediatric CAM questionnaire. Face and content validity testing and modifications made to the WHAT questionnaires have helped ensure adequate preliminary validity for use in pediatric rheumatology. This constitutes the basis for further testing of these questionnaires in pediatric rheumatology and for adaptation to other chronic diseases.

Translation and adaptation of an international questionnaire to measure usage of complementary and alternative medicine (I-CAM-G)

BACKGROUND

The growing body of data on prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage means there is a need to standardize measurement on an international level. An international team has published a questionnaire (I-CAM-Q), but no validation has yet been provided. The aim of the present study was to provide a German measurement instrument for CAM usage (I-CAM-G) which closely resembles the original English version, and to assess it's performance in two potential samples for measuring CAM usage.

METHODS

The English I-CAM-Q questionnaire was translated into German, and adapted slightly. The resulting I-CAM-G questionnaire was then pre-tested on 16 healthy volunteers, and 12 cognitive interviews were carried out. The questionnaire was employed in a sample of breast cancer patients (N = 92, paper and pencil), and a sample from the general population (N = 210, internet survey). Descriptive analyses of items and missing data, as well as results from the cognitive interviews, are presented in this paper.

RESULTS

The translated questionnaire had to be adapted to be consistent with the German health care system. All items were comprehensible, whereby some items were unambiguous (e.g. CAM use yes/no, helpfulness), while others gave rise to ambiguous answers (e.g. reasons for CAM use), or high rates of missing data (e.g. number of times the CAM modality had been used during the last 3 months). 78% of the breast cancer patients and up to 85% of a sample of the general population had used some form of CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Following methodologically sound and comprehensive translation, adaptation and assessment processes using recognized translation procedures, cognitive interviews, and studying the performance of the questionnaire in two samples, we arrived at a German questionnaire for measuring CAM use which is comparable with the international (English) version. The questionnaire appropriately measures CAM use, with some items being more appropriate than others. We recommend the development of a short version.

A qualitative study on the term CAM: is there a need to reinvent the wheel?

Background

As complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has developed extensively, uncertainty about the appropriateness of the terms CAM and other CAM-related terms has grown both in the research and practice communities. Various terms and definitions have been proposed over the last three decades, highlighting how little agreement exits in the field. Contextual use of current terms and their respective definitions needs to be discussed and addressed.

Methods

Relying upon the results of a large international Delphi survey on the adequacy of the term CAM, a focus group of 13 international experts in the field of CAM was held. A forum was also set up for 28 international experts to discuss and refine proposed definitions of both CAM and integrative healthcare (IHC) terms. Audio recordings of the meeting and forum discussion threads were analyzed using interpretive description.

Results

Multiple terms to describe the therapies, products, and disciplines often referred to as CAM, were considered. Even though participants generally agreed there is a lack of optimal definitions for popular CAM-related umbrella terms and that all terms that have so far been introduced are to some extent problematic, CAM and IHC remained the most popular and accepted terms by far. The names of the specific disciplines were also deemed adequate in certain contexts. Focus group participants clarified the context in which those three terms are appropriate. Existing and emergent definitions of both CAM and integrative healthcare terms were discussed.

Conclusions

CAM and other related terms could be used more effectively, provided they are used in the proper context. It appears difficult for the time being to reach a consensus on the definition of the term CAM due to the uncertainty of the positioning of CAM in the contemporary healthcare systems. While umbrella terms such as CAM and IHC are useful in the context of research, policy making and education, relevant stakeholders should limit the use of those terms.

Measurement properties of questionnaires assessing complementary and alternative medicine use in pediatrics: a systematic review

Objective

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is commonly used by children, but estimates of that use vary widely partly due to the range of questionnaires used to assess CAM use. However, no studies have attempted to appraise measurement properties of these questionnaires. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and summarize measurement properties of questionnaires of CAM use in pediatrics.

Study design

A search strategy was implemented in major electronic databases in March 2011 and conference websites, scientific journals and experts were consulted. Studies were included if they mentioned a questionnaire assessing the prevalence of CAM use in pediatrics. Members of the team independently rated the methodological quality of the studies (using the COSMIN checklist) and measurement properties of the questionnaires (using the Terwee and Cohen criteria).

Results

A total of 96 CAM questionnaires were found in 104 publications. The COSMIN checklist showed that no studies reported adequate methodological quality. The Terwee criteria showed that all included CAM questionnaires had indeterminate measurement properties. According to the Cohen score, none were considered to be a well-established assessment, two approached the level of a well-established assessment, seven were promising assessments and the remainder (n = 87) did not reach the score’s minimum standards.

Conclusion

None of the identified CAM questionnaires have been thoroughly validated. This systematic review highlights the need for proper validation of CAM questionnaires in pediatrics, which may in turn lead to improved research and knowledge translation about CAM in clinical practice.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use by Malaysian oncology patients

The current study sought to evaluate Malaysian oncology patients' decision making about the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for the management of their care. Patients were interviewed across three major Malaysian ethnic groups, Malay, Chinese and Indian. Thematic content analysis identified four central themes: Conceptualizing CAM, the decision making process; rationale given for selecting or rejecting CAM and barriers to CAM use. Participants generally used the term 'traditional medicine', referred to locally as 'ubat kampung', meaning medicine derived from 'local traditions'. Mixed reactions were shown concerning the effectiveness of CAM to cure cancer and the slow progression of CAM results and treatment costs were cited as major barriers to CAM use. Concerns regarding safety and efficacy of CAM in ameliorating cancer as well as potential interactions with conventional therapies highlighted the importance of patients' knowledge about cancer treatments.

Personal use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by U.S. health care workers

OBJECTIVE

To examine personal use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among U.S. health care workers.

DATA

Data are from the 2007 Alternative Health Supplement of the National Health Interview Survey. We examined a nationally representative sample of employed adults (n = 14,329), including a subsample employed in hospitals or ambulatory care settings (n = 1,280).

STUDY DESIGN

We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds of past year CAM use.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Health care workers are more likely than the general population to use CAM. Among health care workers, health care providers are more likely to use CAM than other occupations.

CONCLUSIONS

Personal CAM use by health care workers may influence the integration of CAM with conventional health care delivery. Future research on the effects of personal CAM use by health care workers is therefore warranted.

Topical dermal application of essential oils attenuates the severity of adjuvant arthritis in Lewis rats

This study was aimed at examining the effect of an ointment containing essential oils (EO) on the severity of adjuvant arthritis (AA), an experimental model of human rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in Lewis rats and to define the underlying mechanisms. At the onset of AA, the rats received topical application twice daily of an ointment containing 20% EO or placebo ointment. The synovial fluid (SF) and synovium-infiltrating cells (SIC) of rats were tested for pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β. The hind paws and skin were examined histologically. The activity/level of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and anti-mycobacterial heat-shock protein 65 (Bhsp65) antibodies were tested. Arthritic rats treated with ointment containing EO developed less severe clinical arthritis compared with the controls, and this activity was attributable to EO and not to the carrier oil. The levels of TNF-α and IL-1β, and the activity of MMPs in SF and SIC-lysate were significantly reduced in EO-treated arthritic rats compared with the controls. However, the levels of anti-Bhsp65 antibodies were unaffected by treatment. Thus, topical dermal delivery of EO-containing ointment down-modulates the severity of AA in Lewis rats by inhibiting defined mediators of inflammation. Such ointments should be tested in patients with RA and other arthritic conditions.

The use of herbal medicines by people with cancer in the UK: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Little is known about the use of herbal medicines by people living with cancer in the UK. This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of herbal medicine use by this group, the characteristics of users, factors motivating use, and attitudes towards herbal remedies.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Fifteen electronic databases were searched. People who were research-active in the field were contacted and asked about further published or unpublished work. All studies identified as relevant to the purpose of the review were assessed. Searches were not restricted by publication type or date.

RESULTS

Of 1288 unique references identified, 11 met the eligibility criteria. Studies were excluded where research had been conducted outside the UK; where information on herbal medicine use was not differentiated from that relating to complementary and alternative therapies more broadly, and where neither prevalence of use nor information on user characteristics was included. Prevalence estimates ranged from 3.1 to 24.9%. Most studies did not obtain information specifically on herbal medicines and only one examined the characteristics and motivations of users of herbal medicines as distinct from complementary and alternative therapies in general.

CONCLUSION

The high degree of heterogeneity of methodology, sample selection and characteristics, and research design resulted in a wide range of estimates of prevalence. Well-designed research is needed to define the evidence base about the herbal medicines taken by people with cancer in the UK, the reasons for use, knowledge about possible effects and potential risks, and where people seek information.