Although the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has risen in the last decade, information about its use by paediatric patients presenting to an Emergency Department is still sparse. We report here the results of a cross-sectional survey of paediatric patients presenting to an urban, tertiary paediatric Emergency Department between October 2006 and March 2007. In total, 1143 questionnaires (68% of those distributed) were completed and available for analysis. Of these, 58% (n = 665) of all respondents admitted that their child had received some form of CAM therapy, while 25% (n = 291) admitted that their child was receiving CAM for the present illness. In 31% of the respondents (n = 354), CAM had been prescribed by a physician, while 50% (n = 575) used CAM as self-medication. Patients presented to the Emergency Department mostly because of an infection (42% of total; 29% of these used CAM) or a trauma (38% of total; 19% of these used CAM). Parents of CAM-users were significantly older, more often born in Switzerland and had significantly higher school education than those of the non-users. Nearly two-thirds of the administered CAM therapies were not prescribed by a physician, and 50% of the families using CAM did not discuss this with their general practitioner. Parental requirements implied that medical professionals on a paediatric Emergency Department should know the effects and side-effects of CAM therapies and even be able to recommend them. The study population, even trauma patients, frequently used CAM. The use of CAM is characterised by a high rate of self-medication and the exclusion of the physicians from the decision-making process. The parents of paediatric patients frequently demand that CAM be considered as a possible treatment option and wish to have an open discussion with the medical professionals on this topic.

Although the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has risen in the last decade, information about its use by paediatric patients presenting to an Emergency Department is still sparse. We report here the results of a cross-sectional survey of paediatric patients presenting to an urban, tertiary paediatric Emergency Department between October 2006 and March 2007. In total, 1143 questionnaires (68% of those distributed) were completed and available for analysis. Of these, 58% (n= 665) of all respondents admitted that their child had received some form of CAM therapy, while 25% (n=291) admitted that their child was receiving CAM for the present illness. In 31% of the respondents (n=354), CAM had been prescribed by a physician, while 50% (n=575) used CAM as self-medication. Patients presented to the Emergency Department mostly because of an infection (42% of total; 29% of these used CAM) or a trauma (38% of total; 19% of these used CAM). Parents of CAM-users were significantly older, more often born in Switzerland and had significantly higher school education than those of the non-users. Nearly two-thirds of the administered CAM therapies were not prescribed by a physician, and 50% of the families using CAM did not discuss this with their general practitioner. Parental requirements implied that medical professionals on a paediatric Emergency Department should know the effects and side-effects of CAM therapies and even be able to recommend them. The study population, even trauma patients, frequently used CAM. The use of CAM is characterised by a high rate of self-medication and the exclusion of the physicians from the decision-making process. The parents of paediatric patients frequently demand that CAM be considered as a possible treatment option and wish to have an open discussion with the medical professionals on this topic.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to find out which experiences adults are making while treating children with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in Germanspeaking Switzerland. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A cross-sectional survey was performed on adults accompanying the children presenting to an urban, tertiary pediatric emergency department in Zurich; 71% of the distributed questionnaires (1143 of 1600) could be used for data analysis. The respondents were asked about their experiences while treating the child with CAM and-for comparison reasons-with conventional medicine (CM). RESULTS: The respondents perceived the effectiveness of CAM therapies in general to be inferior to that of CM, although 49% of all respondents stated that CAM therapies were more effective than CM in certain cases/against certain diseases and 13% that CAM therapies were as effective as CM. Higher frequency of use and lower compliance were observed in the case of CAM, relatively to CM. Respondents described the direct costs for the patient of both types of medicine to be comparable. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the respondents experienced no side-effects with CAM therapies, whereas only 52% of the respondents stated the same about CM therapies; the observed side-effects of CAM were weaker than those of CM. Homeopathy was the most frequently used form of CAM (77% of all CAM users), followed by herbal medicine (64%), anthroposophic medicine (24%), Traditional Chinese Medicine (13%), Ayurveda (5%), and others (34%). CONCLUSIONS: From the respondents' point of view, the most marked difference between CAM-and CM therapies concerns the frequency and intensity of side-effects, which were markedly higher in the latter case. The respondents made use of a wide variety of CAM therapies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to find out which experiences adults are making while treating children with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in German-speaking Switzerland. Design and subjects: A cross-sectional survey was performed on adults accompanying the children presenting to an urban, tertiary pediatric emergency department in Zurich; 71% of the distributed questionnaires (1143 of 1600) could be used for data analysis. The respondents were asked about their experiences while treating the child with CAM and-for comparison reasons-with conventional medicine (CM).Results: The respondents perceived the effectiveness of CAM therapies in general to be inferior to that of CM, although 49% of all respondents stated that CAM therapies were more effective than CM in certain cases=against certain diseases and 13% that CAM therapies were as effective as CM. Higher frequency of use and lower compliance were observed in the case of CAM, relatively to CM. Respondents described the direct costs for the patient of both types of medicine to be comparable. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the respondents experienced no side-effects with CAM therapies, whereas only 52% of the respondents stated the same about CM therapi...

No abstract