Komplementäre und alternative Heilverfahren im vertragsärztlichen Bereich: Ausmaß, Struktur und Gründe des ärztlichen Angebots

Thanner, Mirjam; Nagel, Eckhard; Loss, Julika

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1364013

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, the response rate in our study (23.3%) is low. This is a common problem in surveys with GPs, and the response rate is similar in other surveys [ 24 , 25 , 44 ]. Therefore, the results may not be representative and might be affected by some selection bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields

Berg‐Beckhoff

Breckenkamp

Larsen

et al. 2014

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim is to explore general practitioners’ (GPs’) knowledge about EMF, and to assess whether different knowledge structures are related to the GPs’ concern about EMF. Random samples were drawn from lists of GPs in Germany in 2008. Knowledge about EMF was assessed by seven items. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify latent structures in GPs’ knowledge. Further, the GPs’ concern about EMF health risk was measured using a score comprising six items. The association between GPs’ concern about EMF and their knowledge was analysed using multiple linear regression. In total 435 (response rate 23.3%) GPs participated in the study. Four groups were identified by the latent class analysis: 43.1% of the GPs gave mainly correct answers; 23.7% of the GPs answered low frequency EMF questions correctly; 19.2% answered only the questions relating EMF with health risks, and 14.0% answered mostly “don’t know”. There was no association between GPs’ latent knowledge classes or between the number of correct answers given by the GPs and their EMF concern, whereas the number of incorrect answers was associated with EMF concern. Greater EMF concern in subjects with more incorrect answers suggests paying particular attention to misconceptions regarding EMF in risk communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields

Berg‐Beckhoff

Breckenkamp

Larsen

et al. 2014

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…injections or acupuncture, are under intermittent surveillance by the local public health offices under the Infection Protection Act (2000). To date, there have been only few scientific studies investigating health services provided by HPs or experiences of patients with HPs in Germany [5, 6]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Germany, many medical doctors also provide CAM [6], especially GPs [7]. Through successful completion of further education, they can qualify in CAM disciplines, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as part of primary health care in Germany–comparison of patients consulting general practitioners and CAM practitioners: a cross-sectional study

Krug

Herrmann

Joos³

2016

BMC Complement Altern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn Germany, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in primary health care is offered by general practitioners (GPs) and by natural health practitioners, so called ‘Heilpraktiker’ (HPs). Considering the steadily growing number of unregulated HPs, the aim of the study was to assess characteristics of patients consulting HPs in comparison to patients consulting GPs.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, patients of randomly selected GPs and HPs were asked to complete a questionnaire about their health care status, health care behavior, and symptoms rated on the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP-D). Patient groups were compared based on health care provider (HP, GP with high use of CAM (CAM-GP), and GP with no/little use of CAM (nCAM-GP)) using Kruskal-Wallis tests and analyses of variance (ANOVA).ResultsAltogether, 567 patients (91 of 11 HPs, 223 of 15 CAM-GPs, 253 of 19 nCAM-GPs) filled in the questionnaire. Patients of HPs had a higher education level and were more often female. The most common reason for encounter among all three groups were musculoskeletal problems (30.2–31.1 %). Patients seeing HPs reported more psychological (4.4 % vs. 17.8 %), but less respiratory problems (19.9 % vs. 7.8 %), and longer symptom duration (>5 years: 21.1 % vs. 40.7 %), than patients of nCAM-GPs.ConclusionsThe high percentage of patients with psychological illness and chronic health problems consulting HPs demonstrates the urgent need for action with regard to CAM therapy in primary care and regulation of natural health practitioners. Appropriate measures with regard to quality and patient safety should be taken given the growing numbers of HPs and the absence of a regulatory body.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1402-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Der Fragebogen wurde durch 2 Allgemeinärzte pilotiert. Da 60 % der Hausärzte komplementäre Therapieverfahren anwenden, diese von Patientenseite häufig nachgefragt und zu 40 % während der Weiterbildungszeit angeeignet werden, erschien es den Fachärzten, die unseren Fragebogen pilotiert haben, sinnvoll, Prozeduren zu komplementärmedizinischen Therapieverfahren in den Fragebogen zu integrieren [11][12][13][14]. Die finale Version des Fragebogens Die Auswertung erfolgte mit dem Statistikprogramm SPSS Version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., IBM).…”

Section: Fragebogenunclassified