No abstract

Introduction The high prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients (40 – 83%) receiving conventional treatment and the complex relationship between the psychosocial factors that may contribute to or result from CAM use requires further understanding. We conducted a descriptive mixed-methods pilot study to understand CAM practices, attitudes and beliefs among cancer patients at the Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC). Methods This was the qualitative phase of the study and no hypotheses were set. Twenty-three face-to-face interviews were conducted and thematic coding was used to analyze 22 interview transcriptions. There were fourteen CAM users (64%) and eight non-users (36%). Findings The themes present among those who used CAM were: physicians viewed as one aspect of health care options, a holistic view on wellbeing, satisfaction with CAM use, and three key coping methods (confrontive, supportive, and optimistic) to confront cancer. Themes were not independent of each other. Two themes were present among nonusers; nonusers trusted their physician and were more likely to express evasive coping methods. Discussion Perceptions and behavioral patterns are complex predictors of CAM use. A better understanding of CAM, medical pluralism, and the perceptions of patients would help health care providers deliver a better quality of care. The promotion of integrative care may help health care providers better identify medical pluralism and would shift focus to patient-centered care.

Lack of discussion about the decision to screen for prostate cancer and general lack of culturally appropriate communication with healthcare providers has engendered distrust, created fear, fostered disconnect, and increased the likelihood of nonparticipation in prostate cancer screening among black men.

This case study reflects on the variety of approaches to health care in a pluralistic immigrant urban enclave in Southern California. In-depth interviews were conducted with a Mexican immigrant woman to explore and understand her health worldview and the strategies she uses in deciding among the diverse health care options available to protect and maintain her family's health. Kleinman's typology of health sectors (professional, folk, and popular) is applied to the popular healing practices of the key informant and her own health-seeking behaviors. These expose the conflict between a professional community that relies on categories and binary comparisons and the existence of multiple, simultaneous health care sectors. This case study highlights the paradoxical world of health and illness in a pluralistic medical setting and how those who reside in an environment where medical syncretism exists apparently see their options very differently from their professional health care providers.

No abstract

Background: Blacks are dying from the novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) at disproportionate rates and tend to have more COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than Whites. These disparities may be attributable to health knowledge and government/medical mistrust stemming from negative experiences with the medical system historically and presently (e.g., the Tuskegee Experiment, provider maltreatment). Method: The present study assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the effectiveness of a 1.5 h, dialogue-based, web intervention hosted by an academic–community partnership team. The webinar included approximately 220 male and female, English speaking, Black churchgoers in the western U.S. The webinar focused on the psychology of fear and facts about the vaccine development. Results: The sample was mostly females who had higher vaccine hesitancy than men. A third of participants feared hospitalization if they contracted COVID-19. Many participants reported that learning facts about COVID-19 was most impactful. Statistical analyses indicated an increased willingness to get vaccinated after the webinar in comparison to before (t(25) = −3.08, p = 0.005). Conclusion: The findings suggest that virtual webinars may be effective at reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black churchgoers and may be applicable in addressing other health behaviors.

This article highlights the relationship between traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) and biomedicine, and the challenges this relationship poses to patients. Medical professionals tend to represent these systems dualistically - as mutually exclusive and in competition with one another. Patients, on the other hand, tend to make truly pluralistic health care decisions - moving freely between TCAM and biomedicine based on what they can access, what they can relate to, and what they believe works. Using their experience with Mexican immigrant and Mexican-American populations in Southwestern United States, the authors discuss strengths and weaknesses in both healthcare systems, and how medical dualism can be a significant barrier to effective healthcare. Recent literature on medical pluralism is discussed from the public health (i.e., community) and medical (i.e., provider) perspectives. These two disciplines are brought together in an attempt to deconstruct the notion that TCAM and biomedicine are diametrically opposed healthcare systems. Biomedically trained health care providers must understand, appreciate, and integrate into their practice how their patients make use of other healing practices and beliefs. Such integration is particularly essential when serving immigrant or minority populations as these groups are more likely to use a pluralistic approach in meeting their health needs.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted inequities in mortalities and associated illnesses among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals. Immunization against COVID-19 is critical to ending the pandemic, especially within racial and ethnically minoritized communities. However, vaccine hesitancy and institutional mistrust in these communities, resulting from decades of mistreatment, structural racism, and barriers to vaccination access, have translated into low vaccination uptake. Trustworthy relationships with healthcare professionals and partnerships with faith and community leaders are critical to increasing vaccination rates within these minoritized communities. Loma Linda University researchers collaborated with local faith and community organizations in San Bernardino County, CA, to rapidly implement a three-tiered approach to increase the vaccination rates within non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latino communities. This community–academic partnership model provided over 1700 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine within these vaccine-hesitant, targeted minoritized communities. As over 100,000 individuals are diagnosed with COVID-19 daily and updated vaccines targeting variants of the Omicron strain are expected to rollout in the coming months, the development of sustainable programs aimed at increasing vaccine uptake within vulnerable communities are of the utmost importance.