Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine use: Reasons and motivations between two tertiary children's hospitals

Domenic R Cincotta ¹, Nigel W Crawford ¹, Alissa Lim ², Noel E Cranswick ², Sue Skull ², Mike South ² and Colin V E Powell ^1*

¹ University Hospital of Wales, United Kingdom
² The Royal Children's Hospital, Australia

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cvepowell{at}cardiffandvale.wales.nhs.uk.

Accepted 22 August 2005

Abstract

Aims:To compare prevalence, reasons, motivations, initiation, perceived helpfulness and communication of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use between two tertiary children’s hospitals.

Methodology:A study, using a face-to-face questionnaire, of 500 children attending the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom was compared to an identical study of 503 children attending the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Results:One year CAM use in Cardiff was lower than Melbourne (41% v 51%; OR=0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.85) reflected in non-medicinal use (OR=0.41, 95%CI 0.29- 0.58) and general paediatric outpatients (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.21-0.67). Compared to Melbourne, factors associated with lower CAM use in Cardiff included families born locally (father: OR=0.58, 95%CI 0.44-0.77) or non- tertiary educated parents (mother: OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.38- 0.77). Cardiff participants used less vitamin C (OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.18-0.51) and herbs (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.71), attended less chiropractors (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.06-0.37) and naturopaths (OR=0.08, 95%CI 0.02-0.33), but saw more reflexologists (OR=3.33, 95%CI 1.08-10.29). In Cardiff, CAM was more popular for relaxation (OR=1.92, 95%CI 1.03-3.57) but less for colds/coughs (OR=0.4, 95%CI 0.27-0.73). Most CAM was self-initiated (by parent) in Cardiff and Melbourne (74% v 70%) but Cardiff CAM users perceived it less helpful (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.68). Non-disclosure of CAM use was high in Cardiff and Melbourne (66% v 63%), likewise few doctors/nurses documented recent medicinal CAM use in inpatient notes (0/21 v 2/22).

Conclusions:The differences in CAM use may reflect variation in socio-cultural factors influencing reasons, motivations, attitudes and availability. The regional variation in use and poor communication highlights the importance of local policy development.

Keywords: complementary and alternative medicine, comparison, reasons, motivations

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Complementary and alternative medicine for children: a good or a bad thing?

E Ernst
Arch. Dis. Child. 2006 91: 96-97. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Vohra, S., Johnston, B. C., Laycock, K. L., Midodzi, W. K., Dhunnoo, I., Harris, E., Baydala, L. (2008). Safety and Tolerability of North American Ginseng Extract in the Treatment of Pediatric Upper Respiratory Tract Infection: A Phase II Randomized, Controlled Trial of 2 Dosing Schedules. Pediatrics 122: e402-e410 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kemp, A. (2008). Food additives and hyperactivity. BMJ 336: 1144-1144 [Full Text]  
• Zebracki, K., Holzman, K., Bitter, K. J., Feehan, K., Miller, M. L. (2007). Brief Report: Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Psychological Functioning in Latino Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis or Arthralgia. J Pediatr Psychol 32: 1006-1010 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Franck, L., Chantler, C., Dixon, M. (2007). Should NICE evaluate complementary and alternative medicine?. BMJ 334: 506-506 [Full Text]  
• Ernst, E (2006). Complementary and alternative medicine for children: a good or a bad thing?. Arch. Dis. Child. 91: 96-97 [Full Text]