RESUMEN
Introduction: The use of Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) is very popular among the general population in Germany. However, international studies show that nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals (HCPs) at hospitals often do not feel sufficiently informed about different CIM approaches. Moreover, they do not feel trained enough to counsel their patients appropriately. In the German-speaking context, particularly within university hospitals, research on this subject is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this explorative study was to evaluate attitudes, subjective knowledge, and needs regarding CIM among HCPs with direct patient interaction across all four university hospitals in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (Tübingen, Ulm, Freiburg, Heidelberg). Methods: The multicenter, cross-sectional, anonymous full survey was conducted online using a self-developed, semi-structured, web-based questionnaire. Recruitment took place via all-inclusive e-mail distribution lists of all four university hospitals. Results: A total of n = 2,026 participants (response rate varied by location from about 5 to 14%) fully answered the questionnaire. Nurses constituted the largest professional group (n = 1,196; 59%), followed by physicians (n = 567; 28%), physiotherapists (n = 54), psychologists (n = 48), midwives (n = 37), and other professions (n = 124). More than two-thirds (71%, n = 1,437) of the participants were female and 14% (n = 286) reported additional training in CIM. The overall attitude toward CIM (10-point Likert scale, 10 = "very favorable") was clearly positive (M ± SD: 7.43 ± 2.33), with notable differences between professional groups: midwives (9.05 ± 1.18), physiotherapists (8.44 ± 1.74), and nurses (8.08 ± 1.95) expressed the highest support, whereas physicians (5.80 ± 2.39) the lowest. 42% of the participants incorporated CIM in patient care (from 33% of physicians to 86% of midwives). Overall, relaxation therapy (n = 1,951; 96%), external applications (n = 1,911; 94%), massage (n = 1,836; 91%), and meditation/mindfulness (n = 1,812; 89%) were rated as useful or rather useful for patients. The average self-assessed knowledge level about CIM was moderate (M ± SD: 5.83 ± 2.03). Most of the participants found CIM training at university hospitals important and saw research about CIM as one of the tasks of university hospitals. The participants expressed the highest interest in education for acupuncture/acupressure, relaxation therapies, and manual medicine. Discussion: This comprehensive survey of health care professionals (HCPs) at university hospitals in Germany reveals a clearly positive disposition toward CIM, aligning with findings from other hospital-based surveys and highlighting differences among professional groups. While most therapies deemed beneficial for patient care are supported by positive evidence, further research is required for others. Given the average self-reported knowledge of CIM, targeted education is essential to meet the needs of both HCPs and patients and to ensure the provision of evidence-based information on the risks and benefits of CIM.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Approximately one fifth of the German population suffers from chronic pain, which is often associated with limitations in coping with everyday life, social isolation and psychological comorbidities such as anxiety and depression. The importance of a treatment approach that considers biological, psychological, and social factors (bio-psycho-social model) as well as non-drug interventions is emphasized in current guidelines, but presents challenges for primary care practices. To support the implementation of evidence-based best practice recommendations, the RELIEF project (Resource-oriented case management to implement recommendations for patients with chronic pain and frequent use of analgesics in general practices) aims to develop a case management program for the primary care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain. METHODS: Prior to intervention development, a rapid review was conducted to identify best practice recommendations for the care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain, barriers and strategies to their implementation, and gaps in care in current guidelines and literature. Selective searches of guidelines, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies of relevant publications, and the gray literature focused on assessment and monitoring, education, promotion of self-care, and rational pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Numerous recommendations on assessment and monitoring were identified, but only a few studies examined their feasibility in primary care practices. Guidelines contained few specific recommendations on content and format of patient education on chronic pain. Recommendations for non-drug self-care measures were mainly related to physical activity, relaxation techniques, behavioral therapy techniques and external applications. Especially for the area of physical activity, numerous barriers but also strategies for a successful implementation could be identified. DISCUSSION: In a potential primary care model for patients with chronic non-tumor pain, pain assessment should aim to identify patients who need support in implementing medication and non-medication interventions in the primary care setting and/or could benefit from specialized care. To implement recommendations for pain education, primary care physicians need educational materials in a variety of formats and levels of detail that ideally could be processed by patients at home and then get addressed in practices using simple key questions. Non-drug measures should be an explicit part of the treatment plan. CONCLUSION: Many of the identified recommendations for the treatment of patients with chronic non-tumor pain can also be considered relevant for the primary care setting. Specific guidelines and concepts for primary care physicians that include setting-specific characteristics at the physician, patient, and system levels would be desirable for a successful implementation of these recommendations.