Emerging evidence suggests substantial health benefits from using meditation. While there are some indications that the popularity of meditation is increasing, little is known about the prevalence, patterns, and predictors of meditation use in the general population. In this secondary analysis of data from the 2012 US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (n = 34,525), lifetime and 12-month prevalence of meditation use were 5.2% and 4.1%, respectively. Compared to non-users, those who had used meditation in the past 12 months were more likely to be 40–64 years, female, non-Hispanic White, living in the West, at least college-educated, not in a relationship, diagnosed with one or more chronic conditions, smoking, consuming alcohol and physically active. Meditation was mainly used for general wellness (76.2%), improving energy (60.0%), and aiding memory or concentration (50.0%). Anxiety (29.2%), stress (21.6%), and depression (17.8%) were the top health problems for which people used meditation; 63.6% reported that meditation had helped a great deal with these conditions. Only 34.8% disclosed their use of meditation with a health provider. These findings indicate that about 9.3 million US adults have used meditation in the past 12 months; and that mental health problems were the most important reason for meditation use.

Most pregnant women are utilising CAM products and/or services as part of their maternity care and obstetricians, general practitioners and midwives need to enquire with women in their care about possible CAM use to help promote safe, effective coordinated maternity care.

In order to describe the prevalence and characteristics of complementary medicine (CM) practice and product use by Australians, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey with Australian adults aged 18 and over. Rates of consultation with CM practitioners, and use of CM products and practices were assessed. The sample (n = 2,019) was broadly representative of the Australian population. Prevalence of any CM use was 63.1%, with 36% consulting a CM practitioner and 52.8% using any CM product or practice. Bodywork therapists were the most commonly consulted CM practitioners (massage therapists 20.7%, chiropractors 12.6%, yoga teachers 8.9%) and homeopaths were the least commonly consulted (3.4%). Almost half of respondents (47.8%) used vitamin/mineral supplements, while relaxation techniques/meditation were the most common practice (15.8%). CM users were more likely to be female, have a chronic disease diagnosis, no private health insurance, a higher education level, and not be looking for work. Prevalence of CM use in Australia has remained consistently high, demonstrating that CM is an established part of contemporary health management practices within the general population. It is critical that health policy makers and health care providers acknowledge CM in their attempts to ensure optimal public health and patient outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundThere is little known about women’s concurrent use of conventional and complementary health care during pregnancy, particularly consultation patterns with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study examines health service utilisation among pregnant women including consultations with obstetricians, midwives, general practitioners (GPs) and CAM practitioners.MethodsA sub-study of pregnant women (n=2445) was undertaken from the nationally-representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH). Women’s consultations with conventional practitioners (obstetricians, GPs and midwives) and CAM practitioners for pregnancy-related health conditions were analysed. The analysis included Pearson chi-square tests to compare categorical variables.ResultsThe survey was completed by 1835 women (response rate = 79.2%). A substantial number (49.4%) of respondents consulted with a CAM practitioner for pregnancy-related health conditions. Many participants consulted only with a CAM practitioner for assistance with certain conditions such as neck pain (74.6%) and sciatica (40.4%). Meanwhile, women consulted both CAM practitioners and conventional maternity health professionals (obstetricians, midwives and GPs) for back pain (61.8%) and gestational diabetes (22.2%). Women visiting a general practitioner (GP) 3–4 times for pregnancy care were more likely to consult with acupuncturists compared with those consulting a GP less often (p=<0.001, x2=20.5). Women who had more frequent visits to a midwife were more likely to have consulted with an acupuncturist (p=<0.001, x2=18.9) or a doula (p=<0.001, x2=23.2) than those visiting midwives less frequently for their pregnancy care.ConclusionsThe results emphasise the necessity for a considered and collaborative approach to interactions between pregnant women, conventional maternity health providers and CAM practitioners to accommodate appropriate information transferral and co-ordinated maternity care. The absence of sufficient clinical evidence regarding many commonly used CAM practices during pregnancy also requires urgent attention.

The professionalisation of doula care and research interest in this area of maternity care/support have both grown internationally in recent years highlighting important broader issues around the access, continuity and delivery of maternity care services. However, no work to date has provided a critical appraisal of the international literature on this topic. In response, this paper presents the first critical review of international empirical literature examining professional doula care for pregnant and birthing women. A database search of AMED, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, and MEDLINE using the search term, “doula” was undertaken. A total of 48 papers published between 1980 and March 2013 involving trained or professional doulas were extracted. Four descriptive categories were identified from the review: ‘workforce and professional issues in doula care’; ‘trained or professional doula's role and skill’; ‘physical outcomes of trained or professional doula care’; and ‘social outcomes of trained or professional doula care’. Of the studies evaluating outcomes of doula care, there were a number with design and methodology weaknesses. The review highlights a number of gaps in the research literature including a lack of research examining doula workforce issues; focus upon the experience and perspective of significant stakeholders such as expectant fathers with regard to trained or professional doula care; clinical trials measuring both subjective experiences and physical outcomes of trained or professional doula support; synergy between the design of clinical trials research examining trained or professional doula care and the clinical reality of professional doula practice. It is imperative that key aspects of trained doula care be subject to further rigorous, empirical investigation to help establish an evidence base to guide policy and practice relating to this area of support and care for pregnant and birthing women.

No abstract

our study illustrates associations between the use of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological labour pain management techniques and selected birth outcomes while controlling for confounding variables. There remain significant gaps in the evidence base for the use of non-pharmacological labour pain control methods and our findings provide a platform with which to develop a broad clinical research programme around this topic.