No abstract

Back pain is a significant health service issue in Australia and internationally. Back pain sufferers can draw upon a range of health care providers including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners. Women are higher users of health services than men and tend to use CAM frequently for musculoskeletal conditions. However, there remain important gaps in our understanding of women's consultation patterns with CAM practitioners for back pain. The objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of use and characteristics of women who use CAM practitioners for back pain. The method used was a survey of a nationally representative sample of women aged 60-65 years from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Women consulted a massage therapist (44.1 %, n = 578) and a chiropractor (37.3 %, n = 488) more than other CAM practitioners for their back pain. Consultations with a chiropractor for back pain were lower for women who consulted a General Practitioner (GP) (OR, 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41, 0.76) or a physiotherapist (OR, 0.53; 95 % CI 0.39, 0.72) than for those who did not consult a GP or a physiotherapist. CAM practitioner consultations for back pain were greater for women who visited a pharmacist (OR, 1.99; 95 % CI 1.23, 3.32) than for women who did not visit a pharmacist. There is substantial use of CAM practitioners alongside conventional practitioners amongst women for back pain, and there is a need to provide detailed examination of the communication between patients and their providers as well as across the diverse range of health professionals involved in back pain care.

Numerous medical studies have documented vegetarian diets as having various health benefits. Studies have also compared vegetarians with other dietary groups from a socio-psychological perspective. The objective of this review is to investigate the differences between vegetarians and omnivores in terms of their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A search was conducted across three electronic databases. Non-randomized, observational, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were eligible. Outcomes provided information about the differences between the above-mentioned dietary groups regarding their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A shortened version of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias for the included studies. Of the 2,513 different studies found, 25 (total number of participants n = 23,589) were ultimately included. These studies indicate that vegetarians significantly differ from omnivores in their personalities, values, and ability to be empathetic. Omnivorism is associated with an increased orientation toward social dominance, greater right-wing authoritarianism, and, in line with this, a stronger tendency to be prejudiced. Vegetarianism is associated with greater openness and empathy. The values of vegetarians are based more on universalism, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, whereas the values of omnivores are based more on the idea of power. To answer a narrowly defined and clear question, issues such as animal ethics, animal rights, and environmental protection are not considered in this review. The findings of this review, showing marked differences in personality correlating to the choice of diet and the increasing influence of plant-based diets on a global level, indicate that further studies about vegetarianism are warranted.

No abstract

The aim of this survey was to examine differences in personality profiles among 198 vegan (n = 64; 32.3%), vegetarian (n = 78; 39.4%) and omnivore (n = 55; 27.8%) medical professionals. Outcomes were motives for the nutritional approaches, WHO QoL-BREF, Big Five SOEP Inventory, Portraits Value Questionnaire, and Empathizing Scale. Regarding motives for particular diets, omnivores rated influence of guardians (p < 0.001), physical health (p = 0.017) and food taste (p = 0.001) as more and love of animals as less important (p < 0.001) than vegans and vegetarians. Vegans and vegetarians consumed less coffee (p = 0.007) and alcohol compared to omnivores (p = 0.017). The duration of adhering to a specific diet was significantly shorter in vegans. Data suggest that vegan medical professionals do not differ from vegetarians or omnivores regarding empathy, values or personality traits. Differences to a related internet sample were observed for a number of outcomes. Given the small sample size and potential selection bias through the specific subpopulation attending a plant-based nutrition conference, further studies are warranted to confirm these results. Particularly, potential reciprocities between empathy and individual nutritional choices deserve further attention.