Dataset Information

Gynecologists' attitudes toward and use of complementary and integrative medicine approaches: results of a national survey in Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Despite patients' widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (IM), few data are available regarding health-care professionals' current implementation of it in clinical routine. A national survey was conducted to assess gynecologists' attitudes to and implementation of complementary and integrative treatment approaches.

Methods

The Working Group on Integrative Medicine of the German Society of Gynecological Oncology conducted an online survey in collaboration with the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in July 2019. A 29-item survey was sent to all DGGG members by email.

Results

Questionnaires from 180 gynecologists were analyzed, of whom 61 were working office-based in private practice and 95 were employed in hospitals. Seventy percent stated that IM concepts are implemented in their routine clinical work. Most physicians reported using IM methods in gynecological oncology. The main indications for IM therapies were fatigue (n = 98), nausea and vomiting (n = 89), climacteric symptoms (n = 87), and sleep disturbances (n = 86). The most commonly recommended methods were exercise therapy (n = 86), mistletoe therapy (n = 78), and phytotherapy (n = 74). Gynecologists offering IM were more often female (P = 0.001), more often had qualifications in anthroposophic medicine (P = 0.005) or naturopathy (P = 0.019), and were more often based in large cities (P = 0.016).

Conclusions

There is strong interest in IM among gynecologists. The availability of evidence-based training in IM is increasing. Integrative therapy approaches are being implemented in clinical routine more and more, and integrative counseling services are present all over Germany. Efforts should focus on extending evidence-based knowledge of IM in both gynecology and gynecological oncology.

SUBMITTER: Grimm D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7985114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, but also in the context of previous epidemic diseases, mobile apps for smartphones were developed with different goals and functions, such as digital contact tracing, test management, symptom monitoring, quarantine compliance, and epidemiological and public health research.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the potential for the acceptance of research-orientated apps (ROAs) in the German population. To this end, we identified distinctive attitudes toward pandemic apps and data sharing for research purposes among smartphone users in general and with a focus on differences in attitudes between app users and nonusers in particular.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, national, telephone-based survey of 1003 adults in Germany, of which 924 were useable for statistical analysis. The 17-item survey assessed current usage of pandemic apps, motivations for using or not using pandemic apps, trust in app distributors and attitudes toward data handling (data storage and transmission), willingness to share coded data with researchers using a pandemic app, social attitudes toward app use, and demographic and personal characteristics.ResultsA vast majority stated that they used a smartphone (778/924, 84.2%), but less than half of the smartphone users stated that they used a pandemic app (326/778, 41.9%). The study focused on the subsample of smartphone users. Interestingly, when asked about preferred organizations for data storage and app distribution, trust in governmental (federal or state government, regional health office), public-appointed (statutory health insurance), or government-funded organizations (research institutes) was much higher than in private organizations (private research institutions, clinics, health insurances, information technology [IT] companies). Having a university degree significantly (P<.001) increased the likelihood of using a pandemic app, while having a migration background significantly (P<.001) decreased it. The overwhelming majority (653/778, 83.9%) of smartphone users were willing to provide their app data for state-funded research. Regarding attitudes toward app usage, striking differences between users and nonusers were found. Almost all app users (317/327, 96.9%) stated they would be willing to share data, whereas only 74.3% (336/452) of nonusers supported data sharing via an app. Two-thirds (216/326, 66.3%) of app users fully or rather agreed with the statement that using a pandemic app is a social duty, whereas almost the same proportion of nonusers entirely or rather disagreed with that statement (273/451, 60.5%).ConclusionsThese findings indicate a high potential for the adoption of ROAs among smartphone users in Germany as long as organizational providers engaged in development, operation, and distribution are state-funded or governmental institutions and transparency about data-using research institutions is provided.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis are increasingly using complementary therapies and medicines (CM) to enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment, manage treatment-related side effects, improve quality-of-life, and promote self-efficacy. In response to the increasing use and demand for CM by cancer patients, interest in the implementation of Integrative Oncology (IO) services that provide CM alongside conventional cancer care in Australia and abroad has developed. The extent that cancer services in Australia are integrating CM is uncertain. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify IO services in Australia and explore barriers and facilitators to IO service provision.MethodsA national, cross-sectional survey of healthcare organisations was conducted in 2016. Organisations in the public and private sectors, including not-for-profit organisations that provided cancer care in hospital or community setting, were included.ResultsA response rate of 93.2% was achieved (n = 275/295). Seventy-one organisations (25.8%) across all states/territories, except the Northern Territory, offered IO albeit in a limited amount by many. Most common IO services included massage, psychological-wellbeing, and movement modalities in hospital outpatient or inpatient settings. There were only a few instances where biological-based complementary medicine (CM) therapies were prescribed. Funding was often mixed, including patient contributions, philanthropy, funding by the organisation, and volunteer practitioners. Of the 204 non-IO providers, 80.9% had never provided any IO service. Overwhelmingly, the most common barrier to IO was a lack of funding, followed by uncertainty about patient demand, choice of services, and establishing such services. Less-common barriers were a lack of evidence, and support from oncologists or management. More funding, education and training, and building the evidence-base for CM were the most commonly suggested solutions.ConclusionIO is increasingly being provided in Australia, although service provision remains limited or non-existent in many areas. Mismatches appear to exist between low IO service provision, CM evidence, and high CM use by cancer patients. Greater strategic planning and policy guidance is indicated to ensure the appropriate provision of, and equitable access to IO services for all Australian cancer survivors.

Project description:BackgroundIntegrative and complementary health approaches (ICHA) are often pursued by patients facing chronic illnesses. Most of the studies that investigated the factors associated with ICHA consumption have considered that the propensity to use ICHA is a stable or fixed characteristic of an individual. However, people may prefer using ICHA in some situations and not in others, depending on the characteristics of the illness to face. Moreover, the attitude toward ICHA may differ within a single individual and between individuals so that ICHA can be used either in addition to (i.e., complementary attitude) or in place of (i.e., alternative attitude). The present study aimed at examining distinct patterns of attitudes toward ICHA in people hypothetically facing chronic illnesses that differed according to severity and clinical expression.MethodsWe conducted a web-based study including 1807 participants who were asked to imagine that they had a particular chronic illness based on clinical vignettes (mental illnesses: depression, schizophrenia; somatic illnesses: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis). Participants were invited to rate their perceived distress and social stigma associated with each illness as well as its perceived treatability. They also rated their belief in treatment effectiveness, and their treatment preference. Four patterns of treatment choice were determined: strictly conventional, weak or strong complementary, and alternative. Bayesian methods were used for statistical analyses.ResultsICHA were selected as complementary treatment option by more than 95% of people who hypothetically faced chronic illness. The complementary attitude towards ICHA (in addition to conventional treatment) was more frequent than the alternative one (in place of conventional treatment). Factors driving this preference included employment status, severity of illness, age and perceived distress, social stigma and treatability of the illness. When the label of illnesses was included in the vignettes, patterns of treatment preference were altered.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that "medical pluralism" (i.e., the integration of ICHA with conventional treatment) is likely the norm for people facing both mental or somatic illness. However, our result must be interpreted with caution due to the virtual nature of this study. We suggest that taking attitudes toward ICHA into account is crucial for a better understanding of patients' motivation to use ICHA.