Literature DB >> 10159673

The perceived efficacy of complementary and orthodox medicine in complementary and general practice patients.

C Vincent1, A Furnham, M Willsmore.   

Abstract

A total of 216 patients attending either the British School of Osteopathy, a large acupuncture centre (City Health Centre), the Royal Homeopathic Hospital or a large general practice in South London completed a questionnaire on the perceived efficacy of orthodox and complementary medicine. The questionnaire covered 1) demographic information and experience of complementary medicine; 2) the Health Locus of Control scale; (3) attitudinal variables: belief in the importance of a scientific base to medicine, the importance of psychological factors in illness and the possible side effects of modern medicine; and 4) ratings of the perceived efficacy of acupuncture, osteopathy, homeopathy, herbalism and orthodox medicine for 16 illnesses, divided into four categories: major, minor, chronic and psychological. Whilst there was no difference between the four groups, health locus of control beliefs showed the acupuncture patients believed less in the scientific basis of orthodox medicine and more in its harmful effects compared with all other groups. Again, acupuncture patients more than any other group tended to believe in the efficacy of that therapy to 'cure' major, minor, chronic and psychological problems. Beliefs in the efficacy of complementary therapies were associated with a belief in importance of psychological factors in illness and concerns about the harmful effects of orthodox medicine. Results are discussed in terms of three things: differences between lay and professional medical beliefs; the health education implications for this research, and the role of complementary therapies in general practice and health promotion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10159673     DOI: 10.1093/her/10.4.395-a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Educ Res        ISSN: 0268-1153


  9 in total

Review 1.  Complementary medicine: state of the evidence.

Authors:  C Vincent; A Furnham
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Respiratory illness: a complementary perspective.

Authors:  G T Lewith
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Integrated medicine in the management of chronic illness: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Sarah B Brien; Felicity L Bishop; Kirsty Riggs; David Stevenson; Victoria Freire; George Lewith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Somatic symptoms and holistic thinking as major dimensions behind modern health worries.

Authors:  Ferenc Köteles; Péter Simor
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2014

5.  Recovery attributions: explicit endorsement of biomedical factors and implicit dominance of psycho-social factors.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Galit Peretz; Ronny Iss; Ravit Kiedan
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2007-04-19

6.  Disease severity is associated with the use of complementary medicine to treat or manage type-2 diabetes: data from the 2002 and 2007 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Richard L Nahin; Danita Byrd-Clark; Barbara J Stussman; Nilesh Kalyanaraman
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 3.659

7.  Health behaviors and risk factors in those who use complementary and alternative medicine.

Authors:  Richard L Nahin; James M Dahlhamer; Beth L Taylor; Patricia M Barnes; Barbara J Stussman; Catherine M Simile; Marc R Blackman; Margaret A Chesney; Morgan Jackson; Heather Miller; Kim K McFann
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2007-08-27       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Development of the adult and child complementary medicine questionnaires fielded on the National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Barbara J Stussman; Christina D Bethell; Caroline Gray; Richard L Nahin
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.659

Review 9.  Factors associated with self-care activities among adults in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.

Authors:  Angela Ryan; Sue Wilson; Aliki Taylor; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 3.295

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.