How German general practitioners justify their provision of complementary and alternative medicine - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many German general practitioners (GPs) use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in their daily work although most CAM procedures are controversial from an academic point of view. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate how GPs justify their use of CAM. METHODS: We performed semi-structured, individual face-to-face interviews with 20 purposively sampled, experienced GPs providing primary care within the framework of the German statutory health insurance system. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: All GPs participating in this study used at least some CAM in their clinical practice. Participants did not have any major conflicts when justifying their use of CAM therapies. Important arguments justifying CAM provision were: using it as a supplementary tool to conventional medicine; the feeling that evidence and science leave many problems in primary care unanswered; a strong focus on helping the individual patient, justifying the use of procedures not based on science for therapeutic and communicative purposes; a strong belief in one's own clinical experience; and appreciation of placebo effects. In general, participants preferred CAM therapies which seemed at least somewhat plausible to them and which they could provide in an authentic manner. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that many German GPs integrate CAM treatments in their routine primary care work without perceiving any major internal conflicts with professional ideals.

On the edges of medicine - a qualitative study on the function of complementary, alternative, and non-specific therapies in handling therapeutically indeterminate situations.

BACKGROUND: In routine practice, general practitioners (GPs) see many patients for whom treatment might not be necessary, or evidence-based treatments are not available, yet often a treatment is prescribed. We denote such situations as therapeutically indeterminate. We aimed to investigate 1) whether therapeutically indeterminate situations play a role in the accounts of GPs in their practical work; 2) the role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities or non-specific therapies, and of other strategies used in handling therapeutically indeterminate situations; and 3) factors associated with preferences for specific strategies. METHODS: We performed semi-structured, individual face-to-face interviews with 20 purposively sampled, experienced GPs from Bavaria, Germany. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported that therapeutically indeterminate situations recur often in their daily practice. Professionally legitimate strategies such as empathetic consultations without providing a treatment intervention did not seem to suffice for coping with all of these situations. CAM treatments were used frequently, but motives varied. While some participants were convinced that these treatments were active and effective, others were uncertain or had doubts and used them as a relational tool, as a non-specific treatment or as a beneficial placebo. Conventional drugs were also used in a non-specific manner or despite doubts regarding the risk-benefit ratio. The extent to which GPs felt responsible for offering solutions in therapeutically indeterminate situations seemed to influence their preference for specific strategies. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the important role of CAM and the somewhat smaller role of non-specific therapies for German general practitioners in dealing with therapeutically indeterminate situations. The concept of therapeutically indeterminate situations may be helpful in better understanding why many general practitioners treat patients in situations where treatment does not appear to be clearly indicated.