OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for glaucoma, explore possible demographic and disease-related associations, and inquire about the perceived benefit of these treatments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One thousand twenty-seven consecutive patients from two urban, referral glaucoma practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of CAM specifically for glaucoma. RESULTS: The response rate was 97.4%. The percentage of people reporting use of CAM for glaucoma was 5.4% (54 of 1000 subjects) with 32 of these 54 (59%) having used more than one type. The percentages of those using the various types of nontraditional medicine were: megavitamin therapy (62.9%), herbal therapy (57.4%), exercise (24.0%), diet modification (22.2%), meditation, (1.8%), acupuncture (1.8%), faith healing (1.8%), and homeopathic remedies (1.8%). Patients who used CAM were more likely to be educated beyond high school (P = 0.0014) and less likely to be retired (P = 0.0053). Use of nontraditional therapy was not strongly associated with race (P = 0.044), age (P = 0.062), gender (P = 0.24), length of diagnosis (P = 0.91), or number of glaucoma medications (P = 0.58). Of those using nontraditional therapy, 52% believed that it was helpful, 39% were unsure, and 9% considered it not helpful; 72% discussed their use with an ophthalmologist. Seventy percent discovered it from sources other than providers of either traditional or nontraditional care. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CAM use for glaucoma was 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.0%--6.4%). Most glaucoma patients currently cared for by ophthalmologists do not use nontraditional medicine.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for glaucoma, explore possible demographic and disease-related associations, and inquire about the perceived benefit of these treatments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One thousand twenty-seven consecutive patients from two urban, referral glaucoma practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of CAM specifically for glaucoma. RESULTS: The response rate was 97.4%. The percentage of people reporting use of CAM for glaucoma was 5.4% (54 of 1000 subjects) with 32 of these 54 (59%) having used more than one type. The percentages of those using the various types of nontraditional medicine were: megavitamin therapy (62.9%), herbal therapy (57.4%), exercise (24.0%), diet modification (22.2%), meditation, (1.8%), acupuncture (1.8%), faith healing (1.8%), and homeopathic remedies (1.8%). Patients who used CAM were more likely to be educated beyond high school (P = 0.0014) and less likely to be retired (P = 0.0053). Use of nontraditional therapy was not strongly associated with race (P = 0.044), age (P = 0.062), gender (P = 0.24), length of diagnosis (P = 0.91), or number of glaucoma medications (P = 0.58). Of those using nontraditional therapy, 52% believed that it was helpful, 39% were unsure, and 9% considered it not helpful; 72% discussed their use with an ophthalmologist. Seventy percent discovered it from sources other than providers of either traditional or nontraditional care. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CAM use for glaucoma was 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.0%--6.4%). Most glaucomapatients currently cared for by ophthalmologists do not use nontraditional medicine.