Variation in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use across racial/ethnic groups and the development of ethnic-specific measures of CAM use.

OBJECTIVES: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is likely to vary among racial/ethnic groups because its use is related to cultural and health beliefs. Understanding patterns of CAM use among ethnic groups could inform clinical practice and the study of CAM use in a diverse population. The authors compared CAM use among Asian-Americans, American Indians, African Americans, Latinos, whites, and other racial/ethnic groups in order to develop ethnic-specific measures of CAM use and explore factors associated with such CAM use across ethnic groups. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of a sample of 9187 adults representative of the California population was performed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ethnic-specific constructs for Asian-Americans, American Indians, African Americans, Latinos, and whites were devised. RESULTS: The authors identified ethnic-specific CAM modalities for each ethnic group. Demographic and clinical factors associated with use of ethnic-specific CAM differed from the predictors of overall CAM use in the general population and varied by ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of CAM use and ethnic-specific CAM use vary across racial/ethnic groups. Evaluation of CAM use in ethnically diverse populations should recognize ethnic-specific modalities and variation across ethnicity.

Variations in provider conceptions of integrative medicine.

Consumers often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and use it concurrently with conventional medicine to treat illnesses and promote wellness. However, prior studies demonstrate that these two paradigms are often not combined effectively. Consumers often do not tell physicians about CAM treatments or CAM practitioners about conventional treatments that they are using. This can lead to inefficient care and/or adverse interactions. There is also a lack of consensus about the structure and practice of integrative medicine among the various types of practitioners. This qualitative study aimed to identify key domains and develop a conceptual model of integrative medicine at the provider level, using a grounded theory approach. Purposive sampling was used to select 50 practitioners, including acupuncturists, chiropractors, internists/family practitioners, and physician acupuncturists in private practice and at academic medical centers in Los Angeles. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with practitioners and then identified core statements that describe practitioners' attitudes and behaviors toward integrative medicine. Core statements were free pile sorted to ascertain key domains of integrative medicine. Four key domains of integrative medicine were identified at the provider level: attitudes, knowledge, referral, and practice. Provider age, training, and practice setting also emerged as important factors in determining clinicians' "orientation" toward integrative medicine. "Dual-trained" practitioners, such as physician acupuncturists, exemplified clinicians with a greater orientation toward integrative medicine. They advocated an open-minded perspective about other healing traditions, promoting co-management with and making referrals to practitioners of other paradigms, and treating patients with both CAM and conventional healing modalities.

A Self-Report Measure of Clinicians' Orientation toward Integrative Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Patients in the U.S. often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and may use it concurrently with conventional medicine to treat illness and promote wellness. However, clinicians vary in their openness to the merging of treatment paradigms. Because integration of CAM with conventional medicine can have important implications for health care, we developed a survey instrument to assess clinicians' orientation toward integrative medicine. STUDY SETTING: A convenience sample of 294 acupuncturists, chiropractors, primary care physicians, and physician acupuncturists in academic and community settings in California. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We used a qualitative analysis of structured interviews to develop a conceptual model of integrative medicine at the provider level. Based on this conceptual model, we developed a 30-item survey (IM-30) to assess five domains of clinicians' orientation toward integrative medicine: openness, readiness to refer, learning from alternate paradigms, patient-centered care, and safety of integration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two hundred and two clinicians (69 percent response rate) returned the survey. The internal consistency reliability for the 30-item total scale and the five subscales ranged from 0.71 to 0.90. Item-scale correlations for the five subscales were higher for the hypothesized subscale than other subscales 75 percent or more of the time. Construct validity was supported by the association of the IM-30 total scale score (0-100 possible range, with a higher score indicative of greater orientation toward integrative medicine) with hypothesized constructs: physician acupuncturists scored higher than physicians (71 versus 50, p<.001), dual-trained practitioners scored higher than single-trained practitioners (71 versus 62, p<.001), and practitioners' self-perceived "integrativeness" was significantly correlated (r=0.60, p<.001) with the IM-30 total score. CONCLUSION: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of the IM-30 as a measure of clinicians' orientation toward integrative medicine. The IM-30 survey, which we estimate as requiring 5 minutes to complete, can be administered to both conventional and CAM clinicians.

Complementary and alternative medicine use and substitution for conventional therapy by HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected patients commonly use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but it is not known how often CAM is used as a complement or as a substitute for conventional HIV therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with CAM use with potential for adverse effects and CAM substitution for conventional HIV medication. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. national probability sample of HIV-infected patients (2,466 adults) in care from December 1996 to July 1997. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Any CAM use, CAM use with potential for adverse effects, and use of CAM as a substitute for conventional HIV therapy. Substitution was defined as replacement of some or all conventional HIV medications with CAM. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patients had recently used at least one type of CAM. One quarter of patients used CAM with the potential for adverse effects, and one-third had not discussed such use with their health care provider. Patients with a greater desire for medical information and involvement in medical decision making and with a negative attitude toward antiretrovirals were more likely to use CAM. Three percent of patients substituted CAM for conventional HIV therapy. They were more likely to desire involvement in medical decision-making (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.2) and to have a negative attitude toward antiretrovirals (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-19.0). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should openly ask HIV-infected patients about CAM use to prevent adverse effects and to identify CAM substitution for conventional HIV therapy.