BackgroundSelf-reported use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) varies widely from 10% to 75% in the general populations worldwide. When limited to use of a CAM provider 2% to 49% reported use is found. CAM use is believed to be closely associated with socio demographic variables such as gender, age, education, income and health complaints. However, studies have only occasionally differentiated CAM use according to gender. Therefore, the aim of the study presented here is to describe the prevalence of CAM use on the background of gender and to describe the specific characteristics of male and female users in the total Tromsø 6 population.MethodsA total of 12,982 men and women aged 30–87 in the municipality of Tromsø, Norway went through a health screening program and completed two self-administered questionnaires in 2007/2008. The questionnaires were developed specifically for the Tromsø study and included questions about life style and health issues in addition to socio demographic variables.ResultsA total of 33% of the participants reported use of any CAM within the last 12 months, women more often than men (42% and 24%, respectively). When limited to visits to a CAM provider, we found 17% use among women and 8% among men. The relationship between the demographic variables and being a CAM user differed significantly between men and women with regard to age, household income, and marital status. We did not find significant differences between men and women concerning education and self-reported health.ConclusionsFindings from this study suggest that the prevalence and associations for use of CAM differ between men and women concerning several socio demographic variables (age, education and household income). Neglect of women’s health care needs in public health care may contribute to the fact that women to a higher degree than men turn to CAM and CAM products.

BackgroundCommunication between different health care providers (conventional and complementary) and cancer patients about their use of complementary therapies affects the health and safety of the patients. The aim of this study was to examine the qualitative research literature on the perception of and communication about the risk of complementary therapies between different health care providers and cancer patients.MethodsSystematic searches in six medical databases covering literature from 2000 to 2015 were performed. The studies were accessed according to the level of evidence and summarized into different risk situations. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the text data, and the codes were defined before and during the data analysis.ResultsTwenty-nine papers were included in the primary analysis and five main themes were identified and discussed. The main risk situations identified were 1. Differences in treatment concepts and philosophical values among complementary and conventional health care providers. 2. Adverse effects from complementary products and herbs due to their contamination/toxicity and interactions with conventional cancer treatment. 3. Health care physicians and oncologists find it difficult to recommend many complementary modalities due to the lack of scientific evidence for their effect. 4. Lack of knowledge and information about complementary and conventional cancer treatments among different health care providers.ConclusionThe risk of consuming herbs and products containing high level of toxins is a considerable threat to patient safety (direct risk). At the same time, the lack of scientific evidence of effect for many complementary therapies and differences in treatment philosophy among complementary and conventional health care providers potentially hinder effective communication about these threats with mutual patients (indirect risk). As such, indirect risk may pose an additional risk to patients who want to combine complementary therapies with conventional treatment in cancer care. Health care providers who care for cancer patients should be aware of these risks.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1326-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDue to limitations of conventional medicine for atopic eczema (AE), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used as an alternative, maintaining, or simultaneous treatment for AE. We aimed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of CAM for children with AE under 14 years old.MethodsWe searched for randomized trials on CAM in 12 Chinese and English databases from their inception to May 2018. We included children (< 14 years) diagnosed with AE, who received CAM therapy alone or combined with conventional medicine. We extracted data, and used the Cochrane “Risk of bias” tool to assess methodological quality. Effect was presented as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using RevMan 5.3.ResultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 2233 children with AE were included. Methodological quality was of unclear or high risk of bias in general. The trials tested 5 different types of CAM therapies, including probiotics, diet, biofilm, borage oil, and swimming. Compared to placebo, probiotics showed improved effect for the SCORAD index (MD 9.01, 95% CI 7.12–10.90; n = 5). For symptoms and signs such as itching, skin lesions, CAM combined with usual care was more effective for symptom relief ≥95% (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30–1.68; n = 8), and for ≥50% symptoms improvement (RR 1.34, 1.25–1.45; n = 9) compared to usual care. There was no statistic significant difference between CAM and usual care on ≥95% improvement or ≥ 50% improvement of symptoms. However, swimming, diet and biofilm showed improvement of clinical symptoms compared with usual care. At follow-up of 8 weeks to 3 years, CAM alone or combined with usual care showed lower relapse rate (RR 0.38, 0.28–0.51, n = 2; RR 0.31, 0.24–0.40, n = 7; respectively) compared to usual care. Twelve out of 24 trials reported no occurrence of severe adverse events.ConclusionsLow evidence demonstrates that some CAM modalities may improve symptoms of childhood AE and reduce relapse rate. Safety remains unclear due to insufficient reporting. Further well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the potential beneficial effect and to establish safety use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-018-2306-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract