Aims: The aim of this research was to study health-related and sociodemographic determinants of the use of different complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments in Europe and differences in CAM use in various European countries. Methods: The study was based on a design-based logistic regression analysis of the European Social Survey (ESS), Round 7. We distinguished four CAM modalities: manual therapies, alternative medicinal systems, traditional Asian medical systems and mind-body therapies. Results: In total, 25.9% of the general population had used CAM during the last 12 months. Typically, only one CAM treatment had been used, and it was used more often as complementary rather than alternative treatment. The use of CAM varied greatly by country, from 10% in Hungary to almost 40% in Germany. Compared to those in good health, the use of CAM was two to fourfold greater among those with health problems. The health profiles of users of different CAM modalities varied. For example, back or neck pain was associated with all types of CAM, whereas depression was associated only with the use of mind-body therapies. Individuals with difficult to diagnose health conditions were more inclined to utilize CAM, and CAM use was more common among women and those with a higher education. Lower income was associated with the use of mind-body therapies, whereas the other three CAM modalities were associated with higher income. Conclusions: Help-seeking differed according to the health problem, something that should be acknowledged by clinical professionals to ensure safe care. The findings also point towards possible socioeconomic inequalities in health service use.

The contestation of expertise is perhaps nowhere more pronounced than in the field of health and well-being, on which this article focuses. A multitude of practices and communities that stand in contentious relationships with established forms of medical expertise and promote personalised modes of self-care have proliferated across Euro-American societies. Drawing on multi-sited ethnography in three domains – body–mind–spirit therapies, vaccine hesitancy and consumer-grade digital self-tracking – we map such practices through the concept of ‘everyday fringe medicine’. The concept of everyday fringe medicine enables us to bring together various critical health and well-being practices and to unravel the complex modes of contestation and appreciation of the medical establishment that are articulated within them. We find three critiques of the medical establishment – critiques of medical knowledge production, professional practices and the knowledge base – which make visible the complexities related to public understandings of science within everyday fringe medicine.

No abstract

The article addresses the question of gender equality in the context of interface organizations between science, technology and innovation, focusing on gendered work practices in science parks. Drawing upon the notions of gendered work practices, feminization of work and feminist science and technology studies, the article explores: 1. Key aspects of work practices in science parks; 2. Gender segregation embedded in these practices; and 3. Practices which help to promote gender equality in intermediary work. The study is empirically based on interviews with top managers and female experts of four Finnish science parks, complemented by one focus group interview with representatives of funding agencies, ministries and intermediary organizations. The study demonstrates that work in science parks is simultaneously future-oriented knowledge work and service work characterized by features of feminization and care (i.e. sensitivity to the needs of clients). Gender segregation commonly seen in the science, technology and innovation sector is reproduced in novel ways in the work practices of the science parks, especially due to the gendered patterns of professional recognition and male networking. This implies that -in spite of the feminised work practices -women do not find easy careers in science parks. The data show, however, that there are also several practices which are used to counteract segregation and promote gender equality, including a number of positive actions developed by women themselves in order to promote recognition and networking in science parks.

This article contributes to the current discussion on interdisciplinarity in the health research field. It focuses on the relationship between nursing research and gender research. Nursing research is a 'health sciences' field which draws from the social sciences, the humanities, and biomedicine. Previous research shows the difficulties that social scientists face in their efforts to integrate with biomedical scientists. The aim of this article is to analyse nursing researchers' views about one potential collaboration partner in the social sciences and humanities: gender research.The study draws its theoretical insights from research within the sociology of science. It uses ideas about the intertwining of power and knowledge, which is especially emphasised in the works of Pierre Bourdieu. The research material consists of 180 abstracts of nursing research articles that argue in some way about the relationship between nursing research and gender research. The Scopus database was selected because it covers nursing research in a broad sense. The scope (28 years) of the study is long. The close reading of abstracts is inspired by rhetorical discourse analysis.We found three clearly different but also overlapping discourses that justified gender perspectives in nursing research: Gender research helps to highlight the socio-political context in nursing research; Gender research develops or reforms nursing research tradition; and Gender research exists as a form of critique within nursing research. Most of the nursing research abstracts regard gender research positively for both external and internal reasons. The abstracts also demonstrate the tensions in the relationship and discuss the views and reasons that generate scepticism towards gender research in nursing research.

Tarkastelemme tässä artikkelissa täydentävien ja vaihtoehtoisten hoitojen käyttöä Suomessa vuosina 2008 ja 2018. Täydentävillä ja vaihtoehtoisilla hoidoilla tarkoitetaan monimuotoista joukkoa erilaisia hoitomuotoja, joita ei tietyssä historiallisessa ja yhteiskunnallisessa tilanteessa pidetä valtavirtalääkinnän osana eikä niitä ole integroitu terveydenhoitojärjestelmään. CAM-hoitojen käyttö virallisesti hyväksyttyjen hoitomenetelmien sijasta tai ohella on merkittävä, mutta maassamme vähän tutkittu ilmiö. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää, miten paljon suomalaiset käyttävät CAM-hoitoja ja millaisia muutoksia käytössä on tapahtunut vuodesta 2008 vuoteen 2018. Tarkastelimme, millaisia hoitoja suomalaiset käyttävät sekä sitä, kokivatko käyttäjät saaneensa hoidosta apua. Tutkimme myös, millaisia mielikuvia suomalaisilla oli eri hoitomuotojen mahdollisuuksista parantaa jokin sairaus. Tutkimusaineistona käytimme Taloustutkimuksen keräämiä kyselyitä, joita analysoimme Khiin neliön testillä, eksploratiivisella pääkomponenttianalyysillä ja lineaarisella regressioanalyysillä.   Tulostemme mukaan CAM-hoitojen käyttö oli vähentynyt viimeisen kymmenen vuoden tarkastelujaksolla. Käytetyimmät hoitomuodot olivat suun kautta otettavat tuotteet (luontaistuotteet, ravintolisät ja rohdosvalmisteet). Muita yleisesti käytettyjä hoitomuotoja olivat rukous, akupunktio ja kiropraktiikka. Vaikka yleinen usko hoitojen parantavuuteen oli laskenut, niin hoitoja käyttäneet kokivat edelleen saaneensa hoidoista apua. Terapioita, joihin sisältyy asiantuntijan hoidettavana oleminen, käyttivät eniten naiset ja vanhemmat ikäluokat. CAM-hoitojen ja valtavirtalääketieteen käyttö eivät olleet tilastollisesti merkitsevästi yhteydessä toisiinsa eli CAM-hoidot eivät vähentäneet valtavirtalääketieteen käyttöä. Vastaajat hakivat apua laajasti eri hoitomuodoista.

The boundary work approach has been established as one of the main ways to study controversies in science. However, it has been proposed that it does not meet the power dynamics of the scientific field sufficiently. This article concentrates on the intertwining of boundary work and power. It combines the boundary work approach developed by Thomas Gieryn and the analysis of power in the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Based on a literature review and an analysis of a controversy over therapeutic touch, it finds four forms of boundary work: intradisciplinary, interdisciplinary, between science and society, and between science and other knowledge systems. The article shows how the different forms of boundary work reveal multiple power struggles, hierarchisations and tensions. The controversy appeared in Finnish nursing science when the Finnish Association of Sceptics gave its annual Humbug Award to a book on therapeutic touch. The book was based on a master's thesis at the University of Tampere department of nursing science. The nursing scholars in the department reacted abruptly and banned certain books, which astonished the students, and a lively public debate followed. In the debate, nursing science was both defended and challenged. The framework of the study shows that the boundary work approach can be used to study different aspects of power. The article proposes that the framework could be used in other controversies as well to study the layers of power in boundary work.

Aims: Increased mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic have become a major concern among young adults. Our aim was to understand which COVID-19-related questions predicted mental well-being during the outbreak. Methods: Two cross-sectional datasets were used. The primary dataset was collected in May 2020 ( n = 1001), during the initial COVID-19 outbreak, and the secondary in April 2019 ( n = 10866), before the pandemic. Mental well-being was assessed with the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Relationships between mental well-being and COVID-19-related questions were investigated with lasso regression. As an exploratory analysis, two-way ANOVAs were used to compare mental well-being before and during the outbreak. Results: Higher levels of mental well-being were associated with lower levels of academic stress and COVID-19-related worry, along with a higher satisfaction with the procedures and information provided by the higher education institutions and the government. COVID-19-related symptoms and infections did not have an impact on students’ mental well-being during the outbreak. Small to moderate effect sizes across the time points were detected, indicating an overall decrease in mental well-being across age and gender during the outbreak. Conclusions: COVID-19 had an impact on higher education students’ mental well-being. Higher education institutes may play a crucial role in protecting their students’ well-being during uncertain times.