Motivations for consulting complementary and alternative medicine practitioners: A comparison of consumers from 1997–8 and 2005
2008

Changes in Reasons for Using Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Sample size: 326 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Fuschia M. Sirois

Primary Institution: University of Windsor

Hypothesis

The study aims to compare the motivations for consulting CAM practitioners between consumers from 1997–8 and 2005.

Conclusion

Consumers in 2005 were more likely to endorse five of the six motivations for consulting CAM practitioners compared to those in 1997–8.

Supporting Evidence

  • In 2005, 91.8% of consumers believed CAM allowed them to take a more active role in their health compared to 51.8% in 1997–8.
  • 67.2% of 2005 consumers found conventional medicine ineffective for their health problems, up from 41.8% in 1997–8.
  • 55.7% of 2005 consumers reported unpleasant side effects from conventional medicine, compared to 9.2% in 1997–8.
  • 92.4% of 2005 consumers valued the emphasis on treating the whole person in CAM, compared to 36.9% in 1997–8.
  • 63.9% of 2005 consumers were desperate to solve their health problems and willing to try anything, compared to 9.9% in 1997–8.

Takeaway

People's reasons for using alternative medicine have changed over time, with more focus on the positive benefits rather than the negatives of regular medicine.

Methodology

Surveys were conducted in CAM and conventional medicine offices in Ontario, Canada, with self-selected participants returning the surveys by mail.

Potential Biases

Self-selection of participants may introduce bias, as they were obtained from waiting rooms of clinics.

Limitations

The response options for the CAM reasons surveyed across the two time points were not identical, which may have impacted the endorsement patterns.

Participant Demographics

The 1997–8 sample had a higher level of education than the 2005 sample, with both groups being similar in age, gender, and ethnicity.

Statistical Information

Statistical Significance

p<0.0001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6882-8-16

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication