The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004

Objective: To survey the use, cost, beliefs and quality of life of users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Design: A representative population survey conducted in 2004 with longitudinal comparison to similar 1993 and 2000 surveys. Participants: 3015 South Australian respondents over the age of 15 years (71.7% participation). Results: In 2004, CAMs were used by 52.2% of the population. Greatest use was in women aged 25-34 years, with higher income and education levels. CAM therapists had been visited by 26.5% of the population. In those with children, 29.9% administered CAMs to them and 17.5% of the children had visited CAM therapists. The total extrapolated cost in Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD$1.8 billion, which was a decrease from AUD$2.3 billion in 2000. CAMs were used mostly to maintain general health. The users of CAM had lower quality-of-life scores than non-users. Among CAM users, 49.7% used conventional medicines on the same day and 57.2% did not report the use of CAMs to their doctor. About half of the respondents assumed that CAMs were independently tested by a government agency; of these, 74.8% believed they were tested for quality and safety, 21.8% for what they claimed, and 17.9% for efficacy. Conclusions: Australians continue to use high levels of CAMs and CAM therapists. The public is often unaware that CAMs are not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for efficacy or safety.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine and self-tests by coronary heart disease patients

Background: Coronary heart disease patients have to learn to manage their condition to maximise quality of life and prevent recurrence or deterioration. They may develop their own informal methods of self-management in addition to the advice they receive as part of formal cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This study aimed to explore the use of complementary and alternative medicines and therapies (CAM), self-test kits and attitudes towards health of UK patients one year after referral to cardiac rehabilitation. Method: Questionnaire given to 463 patients attending an assessment clinic for 12 month follow up in four West Midlands hospitals. Results: 91.1% completed a questionnaire. 29.1% of patients used CAM and/or self-test kits for self-management but few (8.9%) used both methods. CAM was more often used for treating other illnesses than for CHD management. Self-test kit use (77.2%,) was more common than CAM (31.7%,) with BP monitors being the most prevalent (80.0%). Patients obtained self-test kits from a wide range of sources, for the most part (89.5%) purchased entirely on their own initiative. Predictors of self-management were post revascularisation status and higher scores on 'holism', 'rejection of authority' and 'individual responsibility'. Predictors of self-test kit use were higher `holism' and 'individual responsibility' scores. Conclusion: Patients are independently using new technologies to monitor their cardiovascular health, a role formerly carried out only by healthcare practitioners. Post-rehabilitation patients reported using CAM for self-management less frequently than they reported using self-test kits. Reports of CAM use were less frequent than in previous surveys of similar patient groups. Automatic assumptions cannot be made by clinicians about which CHD patients are most likely to self-manage. In order to increase trust and compliance it is important for doctors to encourage all CHD patients to disclose their self-management practices and to continue to address this in follow up consultations.

The supply of complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss hospitals

OBJECTIVES: Over the past few years, a considerable increase in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been observed, particularly in primary care. In contrast little is known about the supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals. This study aims at the investigation of amount and structure of CAM activities of Swiss hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey using a 2-step, questionnaire- based approach acquiring overview information form hospital managers in a first questionnaire leading to detailed information on CAM usage at medical department level (head of department). This second questionnaire provides data of physician-based and non-physician-based CAM supply. RESULTS: The size of hospitals was significantly associated with the provision of CAM. 33% of the hospital managers indicated 1 or more medical doctor (MD) using CAM in their hospital compared to 37% of confirmation on department level (Kappa value 0.5). Mostly different CAM methods were applied. Acupuncture was used most frequently. However only 13 hospitals (11%) occupied more than 3 CAM MDs and only 5 hospitals had more than 2 full-time equivalents for MDs. Furthermore, 74.7% of these personnel resources were dedicated for outpatient care. In terms of CAM methods anthroposophic medicine accounted for more than half of the total personnel costs. On the other hand usage of non-physician based CAM accounted for 41% according to hospital managers compared to 64% of CAM usage according to medical departments (Kappa values 0.31). Reflexology of the foot was used most frequently. CONCLUSION: Total supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals is low and concentrates on few hospitals. Acupuncture is the widest spread discipline but anthroposophic medicine spends the most resources. The study shows that a high patient demand for CAM faces low supply in hospitals.

Extent and structure of health insurance expenditures for complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss primary care

BACKGROUND: The study is part of a nationwide evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in primary care in Switzerland. The goal was to evaluate the extent and structure of basic health insurance expenditures for complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss primary care. METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional evaluation of Swiss primary care providers and included 262 certified CAM physicians, 151 noncertified CAM physicians and 172 conventional physicians. The study was based on data from a mailed questionnaire and on reimbursement information obtained from health insurers. It was therefore purely observational, without interference into diagnostic and therapeutic procedures applied or prescribed by physicians. Main outcome measures included average reimbursed costs per patient, structured into consultation- and medication-related costs, and referred costs. RESULTS: Total average reimbursed cost per patient did not differ between CAM physicians and conventional practitioners, but considerable differences were observed in cost structure. The proportions of reimbursed costs for consultation time were 56% for certified CAM, 41% for noncertified CAM physicians and 40% for conventional physicians; medication costs--including expenditures for prescriptions and directly dispensed drugs--respectively accounted for 35%, 18%, and 51% of costs. CONCLUSION: The results indicate no significant difference for overall treatment cost per patient between CAM and COM primary care in Switzerland. However, CAM physicians treat lower numbers of patients and a more cost-favourable patient population than conventional physicians. Differences in cost structure reflect more patient-centred and individualized treatment modalities of CAM physicians.

Complementary and alternative medicine costs - a systematic literature review

Objective: The aim of this literature review, performed within the framework of the Swiss governmental Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK), was to investigate costs of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in 11 electronic databases. All retrieved titles and reference lists were also hand-searched. Results: 38 publications were found: 23 on CAM of various definitions (medical and non-medical practitioners, over-the-counter products), 13 on homeopathy, 2 on phytotherapy. Studies investigated different kinds of costs (direct or indirect) and used different methods (prospective or retrospective questionnaires, data analyses, cost-effectiveness models). Most studies report 'out of pocket' costs, because CAM is usually not covered by health insurance. Costs per CAM-treatment / patient / month were AUD 7-66, CAD 250 and GBP 13.62 +/- 1.61. Costs per treatment were EUR 205 (range: 15-1,278), USD 414 +/- 269 and USD 1,127. In two analyses phytotherapy proved to be cost-effective. One study revealed a reduction of 1.5 days of absenteeism from work in the CAM group compared to conventionally treated patients. Another study, performed by a health insurance company reported a slight increase in direct costs for CAM. Costs for CAM covered by insurance companies amounted to approximately 0.2-0.5% of the total healthcare budget (Switzerland, 2003). Publications had several limitations, e.g. efficacy of therapies was rarely reported. As compared to conventional patients, CAM patients tend to cause lower costs. Conclusion: Results suggest lower costs for CAM than for conventional patients, but the limited methodological quality lowers the significance of the available data. Further well-designed studies and models are required.

Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites.

BACKGROUND: Many users search the Internet for answers to health questions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a particularly common search topic. Because many CAM therapies do not require a clinician's prescription, false or misleading CAM information may be more dangerous than information about traditional therapies. Many quality criteria have been suggested to filter out potentially harmful online health information. However, assessing the accuracy of CAM information is uniquely challenging since CAM is generally not supported by conventional literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether domain-independent technical quality criteria can identify potentially harmful online CAM content. METHODS: We analyzed 150 Web sites retrieved from a search for the three most popular herbs: ginseng, ginkgo and St. John's wort and their purported uses on the ten most commonly used search engines. The presence of technical quality criteria as well as potentially harmful statements (commissions) and vital information that should have been mentioned (omissions) was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-eight sites (25%) contained statements that could lead to direct physical harm if acted upon. One hundred forty five sites (97%) had omitted information. We found no relationship between technical quality criteria and potentially harmful information. CONCLUSIONS: Current technical quality criteria do not identify potentially harmful CAM information online. Consumers should be warned to use other means of validation or to trust only known sites. Quality criteria that consider the uniqueness of CAM must be developed and validated.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

The other side of the coin: safety of complementary and alternative medicine

Most consumers consider complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) products inherently safe. The growing simultaneous use of CAM products and pharmaceutical drugs by Australian consumers increases the risk of CAM-drug interactions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has a two-tier, risk-based regulatory system for therapeutic goods - CAM products are regulated as low risk products and are assessed for quality and safety; and sponsors of products must hold the evidence for any claim of efficacy made about them. Adverse reactions to CAM products can be classified as intrinsic (innate to the product), or extrinsic (where the risk is not related to the product itself, but results from the failure of good manufacturing practice). Adverse reactions to CAM practices can be classified as risks of commission (which includes removal of medical therapy) and risks of omission (which includes failure to refer when appropriate). While few systematic studies of adverse events with CAM exist, and under-reporting is likely, most CAM products and practices do not appear to present a high risk; their safety needs to be put into the perspective of wider safety issues. A priority for research is to rigorously define the risks associated with both CAM products and practices so that their potential impact on public health can be assessed.

Report on the Regulation of Practitioners of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Ireland

This report has been written in the context of this interest and in response to a request from the Department of Health and Children. It follows a Forum on regulatory issues that was held at the IPA in June 2001 and attended by many CAM practitioners. The Minister for Health and Children asked the Institute to build on the discussions at the Forum by preparing a report on possible options in the regulation of CAM practitioners in Ireland. The focus of the report is on regulatory and policy issues in general. It is not within the Instituteâ?Ts competence or brief to comment on more specific clinical or technical issues. Download the document here

Decision-making in pediatrics: a practical algorithm to evaluate complementary and alternative medicine for children.

We herein present a preliminary practical algorithm for evaluating complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for children which relies on basic bioethical principles and considers the influence of CAM on global child healthcare. CAM is currently involved in almost all sectors of pediatric care and frequently represents a challenge to the pediatrician. The aim of this article is to provide a decision-making tool to assist the physician, especially as it remains difficult to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in the field. The reasonable application of our algorithm together with common sense should enable the pediatrician to decide whether pediatric (P)-CAM represents potential harm to the patient, and allow ethically sound counseling. In conclusion, we propose a pragmatic algorithm designed to evaluate P-CAM, briefly explain the underlying rationale and give a concrete clinical example.