Tai chi for enhanced inpatient mobilization: A feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether utilizing beginner, video-guided tai chi and qigong classes as an adjunct to physical therapy to enhance mobilization among hospitalized patients is feasible and acceptable. DESIGN: Single-arm feasibility study over a 15½-week period. SETTING: Three medical-surgical units at one hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Small-group video-guided beginner-level tai chi and qigong classes supervised by physical therapists occurred three times a week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was weekly class attendance. Secondary outcomes included patient and staff satisfaction, collected by surveys and semi-structured interviews. Process measures included class duration. Balancing measures included falls. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-seven patients were referred for recruitment, 45 gave informed consent, and 38 patients attended at least one class. The number of weekly class attendees increased during the study period. Based on first-class experience, 68% (26/38) of patients reported enjoying the class "quite a bit" or "extremely," 66% (25/38) of patients reported feeling "more mobile" afterward, and 76% (29/38) of patients agreed that the class made them more comfortable going home. Average class duration was 29 minutes. Zero falls occurred during or immediately following class. CONCLUSIONS: Video-guided tai chi and qigong classes are feasible and well-received at our hospital. Future studies of the impact on preserving mobility and function or reducing length of stay are of interest.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine by food-allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing. Use of CAM in food-allergic patients has not previously been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of CAM use, the types of CAM modalities used, and opinions about CAM in food-allergic patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at a patient conference in 2002 and to patients at pediatric food allergy clinics in 2005. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 380 families. Respondents were mainly white, parents of children with multiple food allergies, and from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) area. Diagnostic modalities considered unproven or disproven (such as serum IgG4, electrodermal skin testing, and kinesiology) were used by 22% of respondents; CAM therapies were used by 18%. Participants used several types of CAM practitioners, the most common being chiropractors, homeopaths, and acupuncturists. Only 49% of patients using CAM disclosed this to their physicians. Efficacy ratings for CAM were poor. Regarding participants' opinions, an herbal therapy of equal efficacy, safety, and cost was preferred to a pharmaceutical drug (37% vs 12%; P = .001), but most participants (51%) had no preference or were unsure. CONCLUSION: Unproven or disproven diagnostic methods and CAM treatments were used by approximately 1 in 5 respondents. Those using CAM noted poor efficacy, but if given a choice, many would prefer herbal therapies to pharmaceutical drugs. Education regarding reliable testing for food allergy and further research on CAM therapies are warranted.