Development and evaluation of the R-I-CAM-Q as a brief summative measure of CAM utilisation

Bryden, Gabrielle M.; Browne, Matthew

doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2016.05.007

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Myös kyselyissä käytetty ajallinen ulottuvuus vaikuttaa käytön raportointiin. Käytön tutkimusta onkin pyritty standardoimaan, jotta voitaisiin kerätä kansainvälisesti vertailukelpoista aineistoa (20,23,24).…”

Section: Cam-käyttötutkimuksen Haasteetunclassified

Täydentävien ja vaihtoehtoisten (CAM) hoitojen käyttö Suomessa

Vuolanto

Kemppainen²,

Kemppainen³

et al. 2020

SLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Cam-käyttötutkimuksen Haasteetunclassified

Täydentävien ja vaihtoehtoisten (CAM) hoitojen käyttö Suomessa

Vuolanto

Kemppainen²,

Kemppainen³

et al. 2020

SLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The I-CAM-Q was developed as a measure of CM health service and treatment use that could be used consistently across different populations that has been validated in a range of population samples 21 22. The I-CAM-Q necessitates country-specific items be added that are relevant to the population studied23; therefore, a number of changes were made to ensure validity of the I-CAM-Q in an Australian population. Items from the I-CAM-Q used in this study related to CM product use including products used in the previous 12 months, who prescribed them (eg, type of health practitioner), and estimated total cost of each medicine type.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of complementary medicine products: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 2019 Australian adults

Harnett

McIntyre²,

Steel

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo provide a contemporary description of complementary medicine (CM) product use in Australia.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingOnline.ParticipantsA nationally representative sample (n=2019) of the Australian adult population.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes measures included the use and type of CM products used, and source of recommendation. Secondary measures included disclosure of CM product use to health practitioners, concomitant use of pharmaceuticals and predictors of use.ResultsPrevalence of CM product use was 50.3%, with the most frequently used being vitamin and mineral supplements (VMSs; 47.8%) and homoeopathic medicines the least used (6.8%). A majority of respondents using CM products were also using pharmaceutical products, and small but significant associations were found between the use of CM products and pharmaceuticals (p<0.05). Small statistically significant associations were found between use of vitamin products and disclosure of use to general practitioners (GPs; Cramer’s V=0.13, p=0.004) and hospital doctors (Cramer’s V=0.11, p=0.04), and between use of herbal medicines and disclosure to both GPs (Cramer’s V=0.11, p=0.02) and hospital doctors (Cramer’s V=0.12, p=0.03). Women, those with higher education and those with no private health insurance were more likely to use CM products (p<0.05), while those without chronic conditions were less likely to use CM products (p<0.05) (χ2(29)=174.70, p<0.001).ConclusionsThe number of Australians using CM products has remained relatively stable and substantial for nearly two decades. The majority of CM use relates to VMSs. Given the number of Australians using both CM products and pharmaceutical medicines, it is important to evaluate the potential clinical implications of such practices to ensure safe, effective and coordinated health policy and patient care.

show abstract

“…20,21 I-CAM-Q requires country specific items that are relevant to the population study to be added into the survey questions. 22 Therefore, the I-CAM-Q was adapted in this study for use within the cultural context of the Australian population. The survey participants were asked to indicate their CM use over the last 12 months from a list of CM products, mind-body practices and CM practitioners, followed by their estimated out-of-pocket expenditure for each CM used.…”

Section: Utilisation Of Complementary and Conventional Health Service And Medicinal Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To ensure the integrity of our data, the tools or instruments employed in the development of survey questionnaire had been validated in a number of population samples and they were reviewed by content experts such as CM practitioners, statisticians and health service researchers to ensure the cultural relevance and appropriateness of their use in the Australian population. [18][19][20][21][22]…”

Section: Limitations Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence, characteristics, expenditure and predictors of complementary medicine use in Australians living with gastrointestinal disorders: A cross-sectional study

Gan

Smith

McIntyre

et al. 2019

Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, expenditure and predictors of complementary medicine (CM) use in Australian adults living with gastrointestinal disorders (GID). Methods:A cross-sectional study involving 2,025 Australian adults was conducted. Participants were recruited through purposive convenience sampling. Descriptive statistics were conducted to report the prevalence of people living with GIDs and their CM use, including CM products, mindbody practices and CM practitioner services. Chi-square test and independent-samples t-test were used to determine the associations between sociodemographic or health-related variables with CM use. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine the significant predictors of CM use in GID participants. Economic data was calculated based on the mean out-of-pocket expenditure on CM.Results: Of the 293 participants reporting a GID, 186 (63.5%) used CM products, 55 (18.8%) used a mind-body practice and 141 (48.1%) visited at least one CM practitioner in the last 12 months.Collectively, the majority of GID participants using any type of CM were female, aged 40 to 49 years, married and employed. The mean score for health-related quality of life was 49.6 out of 100 in GID participants and 68.2 in participants without a GID (p<0.001). Average annual out-of-pocket expenditure on CM products was AUD127.29 by CM products users with a GID. The predictors of CM products, mind-body practices and CM practitioner services use differed. Of the 111 CM product users with a GID, 103 (92.8%) disclosed all or some of their CM use to general practitioner, 89 (80.2%) to specialist doctor, 79 (71.2%) to pharmacist and 69 (62.1%) to hospital doctor. Conclusions:A substantial proportion of Australian adults living with GID use CM products, mindbody practices and CM practitioner services. This study provides important insights to inform and guide the development of a more coordinated health care services for individuals living with GID.

show abstract

Development and evaluation of the R-I-CAM-Q as a brief summative measure of CAM utilisation

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Täydentävien ja vaihtoehtoisten (CAM) hoitojen käyttö Suomessa

Täydentävien ja vaihtoehtoisten (CAM) hoitojen käyttö Suomessa

Use of complementary medicine products: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 2019 Australian adults

The prevalence, characteristics, expenditure and predictors of complementary medicine use in Australians living with gastrointestinal disorders: A cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About