How do patients integrate complementary medicine with mainstream healthcare? A survey of patients' perspectives

Barriers and Facilitators to the Inclusion of Naturopaths in Interprofessional Health Care Teams: A Scoping Review

Objective: The growing population of individuals with chronic pain presents a challenge to a globally overburdened health care workforce. Naturopaths are trained as primary health care providers who manage patients with chronic pain and, yet, are often overlooked in health care teams. This scoping review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting naturopathic inclusion into interprofessional health care teams managing patients with chronic pain. Methods: This study protocol was registered a priori through Open Science (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2G3JT). A search was conducted using databases AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, and Health Business Elite. Search limits included English language from 2012 to 2023. Included publications were from academic and gray literature. Search terms used included the following: "Naturopath*" OR "Integrative medicine" AND "Health care system*" OR "Health system*" OR "Models of health care" OR "Professional autonomy" OR "Professional regulation" OR "Professional govern*" OR "Interprofessional practice (IPP)" OR "Multidisciplinary communication." The scoping review utilized Covidence software and was analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework to inform a narrative approach. Results: Five themes emerged that relate to the inclusion of naturopaths in health care teams as follows: (1) perceptions of naturopathy, (2) practice standards, (3) legitimacy, (4) resources, and (5) shifting power dynamics and cooperation. Conclusions: Barriers for naturopathic inclusion into health care teams are influenced by perceptions of naturopathy, naturopathic education standards, regulations, research, and patient equity and access. Facilitators for inclusion include the growing shift toward person-centered care, greater interprofessional education, and shared assets, including colocation.

Perceived challenges in treatment decision-making for endometriosis: healthcare professional perspectives

Background

Endometriosis, a systemic chronic inflammatory condition which has no cure, has a high symptom burden that can negatively impact every facet of life. Given the absence of a gold-standard treatment, the best symptom management regimen in endometriosis is heavily reliant on a patient's values and preferences, making shared decision-making (SDM) vital. However, a comprehensive patient decision aid (PtDA) intervention that could facilitate patient decision-making and promote SDM is lacking in endometriosis, and there is little research on the decisional support needs of individuals with this condition. This qualitative study aimed to explore healthcare professional (HP) perspectives of their clients' decisional support needs when choosing treatments to manage endometriosis symptoms, with a view to evaluating the need for a PtDA.

Methods

Australian HPs identified as specialising in endometriosis care (N = 13) were invited to participate in a short interview over the Internet by phone. Questions focussed on perceived facilitators and challenges of decision-making when choosing treatments for endometriosis. Transcribed qualitative data were thematically analysed and verified by multiple coders, using the template approach.

Results

Four themes were identified: (1) Identifying and setting priorities; (2) HPs' lack of time and perceived lack of knowledge; (3) Patient-centred care and SDM, including patient capacity; and (4) Decision-making blinded by hope. This is the first known study to explore HPs' perspectives on patient decision-making challenges in endometriosis.

Discussion

Findings draw attention to the difficulties people with endometriosis experience when assessing and choosing treatments, highlighting the need for a comprehensive PtDA intervention to support this decision-making.

Patient-doctor interactions around alternative and complementary medicine in the context of oncology care in a Latin American country

OBJECTIVE

To characterize doctor-patient communication patterns around the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in the context of oncology care in Colombia.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using snowball sampling until data saturation was reached. We included oncology specialists and cancer patients who were in active treatment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted following a guide designed for each group of participants. An analysis based on open coding was performed to identify thematic areas. The coherence of emerging categories was verified by contrasting the data set within the content of the participants' reports and existing literature.

RESULTS

In total, 10 oncologists and 16 cancer patients were included, representing diverse professional fields and cancer diagnoses, respectively. Communication patterns comprise themes regarding the beginning of the interaction (i.e., patient's anticipations), the patient-doctor relationship (i.e., confidence), the characteristics of the message (i.e., synthetic vs explanatory), the communication styles (i.e., confrontational vs conciliatory), and the closing of the interaction (i.e., continuity vs. end of communication). In addition, extrinsic factors influencing communication were found to be related to participants (i.e., knowledge, cultural background) and context (i.e., institutional procedures).

CONCLUSIONS

The low frequency of communication contrasts to the increasing use of CAM. Divergent perspectives between doctors and patients could limit shared decision-making on the use of CAM. Enhanced knowledge and education on CAM for both actors is fundamental to improve their interaction and to move away from paternalistic and confrontational communication, particularly in a world region with cultural backgrounds that influence the use of CAM.

An exploration of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand: A qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Most studies examining complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) stakeholder engagement with evidence-based practice have relied on quantitative research methods, which often fail to capture the nuances of this phenomena. Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to explore the experiences of CAM stakeholders regarding the barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research.

METHODS

This research was guided by a qualitative descriptive framework. CAM practitioners and researchers of multiple CAM disciplines from across Australia and New Zealand were invited to share their personal perspectives of the study phenomena. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Rigour strategies were applied to ensure the credibility of results. The transcript was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

CAM stakeholders identified an array of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research within their disciplines. The barriers and enablers that emerged were found to be inter-connected with two similar constructs: capacity and culture. Captured within the construct of capacity were five themes-lack of resources, inadequate governance/leadership, lack of competency, bias directed from outside and within CAM, and lack of time for research. Within the construct of culture were two themes-intrinsic perceptions in CAM, and lack of communication within and outside CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting evidence-based practice and engaging with research in CAM continues to face challenges. This study, for the first time, has highlighted the multitude of interlinked barriers that confront CAM stakeholders when engaging with research. These findings highlight the need for a concerted and targeted approach to tackle these challenges.

Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine despite limited perceived efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases in Mexico: Cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently used by patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) to improve their symptoms; however, its diversity and availability have increased notably while scientific support for its effectiveness and adverse effects is still scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence and diversity of CAM in patients with RD in Chihuahua, Mexico.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 500 patients with RD who were interviewed about the use of CAM to treat their disease. The interview included sociodemographic aspects, characteristics of the disease, as well as a description of CAM use, including type, frequency of use, perception of the benefit, communication with the rheumatologist, among others.

RESULTS

The prevalence of CAM use was reported by 59.2% of patients, which informed a total of 155 different therapies. The herbal CAM group was the most used (31.4%) and included more than 50 different therapies. The use of menthol-based and arnica ointments was highly prevalent (35%). Most patients (62.3%) reported very little or no improvement in their symptoms. Only a fourth of the patients informed the rheumatologist of the use of CAM. The use of CAM was influenced by female sex, university degree, diagnosis delay, lack adherence to the rheumatologist's treatment, family history of RD, and orthopedic devices.

CONCLUSION

The use of CAM in our population is highly prevalent and similar to reports in different populations suggesting a widespread use in many different societies. We found high use of herbal remedies; however, there were many different types suggesting a lack of significant effect. Patients continue using CAM despite a perception of no-effectiveness. Recurrent use of CAM is explained by factors other than its efficacy.