Dataset Information

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome According to the Roma IV Criteria: A Single-Center Italian Survey.

ABSTRACT: Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) as assessed by the Rome IV criteria. Methods: Consecutive patients referring for IBS were re-evaluated according to the Rome IV criteria. Demographic features and characteristics potentially associated with the use of CAM were collected. A validated, self-administered, survey questionnaire dealing with CAM and patients' level of knowledge, motivation, perception, and information seeking-behavior toward the use of CAM was analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed in order to identify predictors of CAM use among participants. Results: Among 156 patients claiming IBS, 137 (88%) met the Rome IV criteria, and 62 of them (45%) were CAM users. Biologically based therapy was the most chosen CAM (78%). Significant risk factors (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) for the use of CAM were female gender (7.22, 2.31?22.51), a higher BMI (1.16, 1.02?1.33), and a good knowledge of CAM (4.46, 1.73?11.45), while having children was a protective factor (0.25, 0.07?0.95). Only 19% of patients used CAM due to medical advice and over half (51%) thought it was a "more natural" approach. Although a minority of patients (16%) had full satisfaction from CAM, 81% of users would repeat the CAM experience for their IBS symptoms. Conclusions: The widespread use of CAM in IBS, the patients' belief in its safety, and their willingness to re-use it suggest that knowledge of health-care providers and patient education should be improved.

SUBMITTER: Larussa T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6409648 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome According to the Roma IV Criteria: A Single-Center Italian Survey.

Larussa Tiziana T Rossi Marianna M Suraci Evelina E Marasco Raffaella R Imeneo Maria M Abenavoli Ludovico L Luzza Francesco F

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 20190213 2

<i>Aim:</i> This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) as assessed by the Rome IV criteria. <i>Methods:</i> Consecutive patients referring for IBS were re-evaluated according to the Rome IV criteria. Demographic features and characteristics potentially associated with the use of CAM were collected. A validated, self-administered, survey questionnaire dealing with CAM and patients' level of knowle ...[more]

PMID: 30781771

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA high prevalence of primary bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) has been reported for Rome III defined irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)-diarrhoea and functional diarrhoea. We determined whether this still applies under the contemporaneous Rome IV criteria, given that the latter characterises IBS-diarrhoea as having more frequent abdominal pain compared with previous iterations, whilst no longer recognising abdominal discomfort.MethodsPatients referred for a 75SeHCAT test completed a baseline questionnaire comprising, i) demographic data, ii) risk factors for BAD (inflammatory bowel disease, bowel resection, cholecystectomy, microscopic colitis, celiac disease, abdominal-pelvic radiotherapy), iii) the Rome III and IV bowel disorder questionnaire, and iv) mood and somatisation scores. A diagnosis of BAD constituted a 75SeHCAT of ≤15%, with moderate to severe disease being defined as ≤10% and ≤5%, respectively.FindingsOf 300 patients with complete dataset, 184 had no risk factors for BAD and fulfilled criteria for either IBS-diarrhoea or functional diarrhoea. The prevalence of primary BAD was 38% (n = 70/184), with almost half having moderate (n = 16) to severe (n = 17) disease. Using the Rome III criteria, the prevalence of primary BAD was 36% in IBS-diarrhoea (n = 63/173) and 64% (n = 7/11) in functional diarrhoea; p = 0.11. Using the Rome IV criteria, the prevalence of primary BAD was 38% (n = 53/139) in IBS-diarrhoea and 38% (n = 17/45) in functional diarrhoea; p = 0.97. Patients with primary BAD experienced more frequent loose stools (p = 0.01) and had a higher body mass index (p<0.0001) compared to those without BAD, but otherwise no significant differences were seen in age, gender, mood, somatisation, or abdominal pain. The presence of primary BAD in patients classified as overweight or obese was approximately 40% and 60%, respectively.InterpretationOver a third of patients with Rome IV IBS-diarrhoea or functional diarrhoea have primary BAD, similar to Rome III. We therefore recommend that, in secondary care settings, generic testing for primary BAD should be considered in patients presenting with chronic diarrhoea of presumed functional origin regardless of concomitant abdominal pain. Centres that lack tests for primary BAD, and who empirically treat instead, may consider targeting patients who are overweight or obese.

Project description:Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder with abdominal pain and bowel habits changes. Herbal medicines (HMs) are frequently used in the treatment of IBS. Therefore, several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of HM in IBS patients. This study aimed to investigate the methodology and quality of evidence of SRs, and to describe the current state of research and evidence for the treatment of IBS with HM. Methods: SRs published up to January 2022 were searched using six electronic databases. SRs and/or meta-analyses on the use of HMs for IBS were included. The effects of placebo, conventional medicine (CM), and probiotics were compared with those of HMs. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed methodological quality using the Measure Tool to Assessment System Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each main finding. Results: Eighteen SRs were included in this overview. Among them, eight SRs reported only specific subtypes of IBS: six SRs reported patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, and two SRs reported patients with constipation-predominant IBS. In terms of total efficacy, HM was more effective than placebo, CM, or probiotics. HM showed a more significant effect than CM in relieving independent IBS symptom score (abdominal pain score, diarrhea score, abdominal distension score, stool frequency score, etc.) and recurrence rate. The rate of adverse events was significantly lower with HM compared to CM, and no serious adverse events were reported with HM treatment. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was extremely low. Furthermore, the quality of evidence for total efficacy was considered low or very low according to the GRADE tool. Conclusion: HM can be considered as an effective and safe treatment for IBS. However, the methodological quality of the included SRs and the quality of evidence was generally low. Therefore, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in the future so that a high-quality SR can be used to better assess the safety and efficacy of HM in the treatment of IBS. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/nt6wz, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/NT6WZ.

Project description:Purpose: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) interventions are widely used by patients with chronic disorders, including cancer, and may interact with cancer treatment. Physicians are often unaware of this, probably due to poor patient-physician communication on CAM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice patterns regarding CAM in a survey conducted in Italy. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to 438 physicians (11 Italian hospitals) who predominantly treat patients with chronic disease, to collect personal and professional data and information on attitudes toward CAM and its possible role in Conventional Medicine (CM). Results: Of the 438 participants, most were specialists in oncology (18%), internal medicine (17%), surgery (15%), and radiotherapy (11%). Most worked at university (44%) or research hospitals (31%). Forty-two percent of participants believed that CAM could have an integrative role within CM. Oncologists were the physicians who were best informed on CAM (58%). Physicians working at research institutes or university hospitals had a greater knowledge of CAM than those employed at general hospitals (p < 0.0001), and those who were also involved in research activity had a greater knowledge of CAM than those who were not (p < 0.003). Length of work experience was significantly related to CAM knowledge. Moreover, 55% of participants suggest CAM interventions to their patients and 44% discuss CAM with them. The best-known interventions were acupuncture, Aloe vera and high-dose vitamin C. Conclusion: CAM use by patients with chronic disease and/or cancer has become a topical issue for the scientific community and for physicians. Knowing the reasons that prompt these patients to use CAM and guiding them in their decisions would improve treatment and outcomes and also benefit healthcare systems. Our findings contribute to a greater understanding of CAM knowledge, attitudes, and practice among Italian physicians. Further research is needed to identify the more effective CAM treatments and to work toward an integrated healthcare model.

Project description:BackgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.Design and participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Main measuresFactors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.Key resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.ConclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

Dataset Information

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome According to the Roma IV Criteria: A Single-Center Italian Survey.

Publications

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome According to the Roma IV Criteria: A Single-Center Italian Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets