Prevalence and perceived outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine use in hospitalized British patients

Abstract

Objectives:This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and perceived outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in secondary care patients and to find out determinants for CAM utilization and perceived effectiveness and side-effects. Materials and Methods: Patients who met the eligibility criteria in this cross-sectional study were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Patients' medications and relevant details were verified from the medical notes. A logistic regression analysis was performed and the significance level set at α = 0.05. Results: A total of 240 in-patients were interviewed. The prevalence of CAM use during admission, within 1 month, within 1 year, and at some point in life was 90.4%, 68.8%, 37.9%, and 8.3%, respectively. Diverse reasons for CAM use or non-use were cited. Nearly two-thirds of patients (63.1%) perceived CAM effectiveness and approximately half (57.6%) were aware of its side-effects. The determinants for CAM use at some point in life and perceived effectiveness could be predicted approximately 20% by two models: Logit P use = 3.404 − 1.044 × Educ + 1.314 × Ward − 1.539 × Consider and Logit P eff = 3.244-0.995 × Gender-0.025 × Age − 1.503 × Consider. Conclusion: Patients decided to use CAM for various reasons and perceived different outcomes. The specific CAM use and its outcomes warrant further studies.

Complementary medicine use among general internal medicine inpatients in a Swiss university hospital

“…Although no CM was delivered by the hospital during the study period, still one‐tenth of patients reported taking CM during their hospital stay. This prevalence is in agreement with one study conducted among inpatients in Denmark and another conducted in England . Self‐medication during hospitalisation should also be searched for, especially herbal medicine which was among the most CM used 2 months before and during hospitalisation in our study.…”

“…Lifetime CM use among hospitalised patients was comparable to other studies conducted in England (90%), Australia (90%), and Scotland (68%), but considerably higher than among the Swiss population (49%) . This discrepancy could be partially explained by differences in the characteristics of the populations surveyed (older age, more chronic diseases among hospitalised patients) and the definition of CM.…”

“…The study was conducted during 4 weeks of September 2014 at the department of internal medicine of the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. According to other studies all adult (≥18 years) patients hospitalised in the internal medicine ward for more than 1 day were considered as eligible. Patients were excluded if (1) they refused or were unable to consent; (2) did not speak French; (3) presented with hemodynamic instability; (4) presented a serious psychiatric disease as considered by the medical staff or (5) presented an end‐of‐life situation.…”

“…Data were collected by face‐to‐face interviews with a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on existing instruments used for the same purpose . The questionnaire collected socio‐demographic data, CM use (lifetime, 2 months before and during hospitalisation), reasons for use of CM and disclosure of CM use.…”

“…Conversely, prevalence of its use by hospitalised patients is scarce. The few studies on CM use in hospitalised patients showed that between 68% and 90% of patients hospitalised used CM at some point in life . Only two studies focused on CM use at admission or during hospitalisation, with a prevalence of 6.5% in an internal medicine ward in Denmark and 8.3% in general surgery, orthopedics or internal medicine wards in the United Kingdom …”